National CouncilNational Council on DisabilityPROPOSED RULESFreedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, and Government in the Sunshine Act Procedures, 33199-332082015-14121National Endowment for the ArtsNational Endowment for the ArtsRULESDrug-Free Workplace Requirements; Implementation of OMB Guidance, 33155-331572015-14163National FoundationNational Foundation on the Arts and the HumanitiesSee

80112Thursday, June 11, 2015Rules and RegulationsNATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIESNational Endowment for the Arts2 CFR Part 325645 CFR Part 1155RIN 3135-AA24Implementation of OMB Guidance on Drug-Free Workplace RequirementsAGENCY:

National Endowment for the Arts.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is adopting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on drug-free workplace requirements for financial assistance. It is removing its regulation implementing the Governmentwide common rule and issuing a new regulation to adopt the OMB guidance. This regulatory action implements the OMB's initiative to streamline and consolidate into one title of the CFR all Federal regulations on drug-free workplace requirements for financial assistance. These regulatory actions constitute an administrative simplification that would make no substantive change in NEA's policy or procedures for drug-free workplace.

DATES:

This rule is effective on June 11, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sarah Weingast, Assistant General Counsel, (202) 682-5796.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Please note that the proposed rule for this regulatory change, filed March 23, 2015, originally designated 2 CFR part 3255 for the Implementation of the OMB Guidance. No comments were received regarding the proposed rule during the 30 day comment period. This final rule, however has redesignated this Implementation of OMB Guidance to part 3256 so that the originally-designated part may be used for other regulations.

A. Background

On November 18, 1988, Congress enacted the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-690, Title V, Subtitle D; 41 U.S.C. 701, et seq.) as a part of omnibus drug legislation. Federal agencies issued an interim final common rule to implement the Act as it applied to grants (53 FR 4946, January 31, 1989). The rule was a subpart of the Governmentwide common rule on nonprocurement suspension and debarment. The agencies issued a final common rule after consideration of public comments (55 FR 21681, May 25, 1990).

The agencies proposed an update to the drug-free workplace common rule in 2002 (67 FR 3266, January 23, 2002) and finalized it in 2003 (68 FR 66534, November 26, 2003). The updated common rule was redrafted in plain language and adopted as a separate part, independent from the common rule on nonprocurement suspension and debarment. Based on an amendment to the drug-free workplace requirements in 41 U.S.C. 702 (Pub. L. 105-85, div. A, title VIII, Sec. 809, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1838), the update also allowed multiple enforcement options from which agencies could select, rather than requiring use of a certification in all cases.

When it established Title 2 of the CFR as the new central location for OMB guidance and agency implementing regulations concerning grants and agreements (69 FR 26276, May 11, 2004), OMB announced its intention to replace common rules with OMB guidance that agencies could adopt in brief regulations. OMB began that process by proposing (70 FR 51863, August 31, 2005) and finalizing (71 FR 66431, November 15, 2006) Governmentwide guidance on nonprocurement suspension and debarment in 2 CFR part 180.

As the next step in that process, OMB proposed for comment (73 FR 55776, September 26, 2008) and finalized (74 FR 28149, June 15, 2009) Governmentwide guidance with policies and procedures to implement drug-free workplace requirements for financial assistance. The guidance requires each agency to replace the common rule on drug-free workplace requirements that the agency previously issued in its own CFR title with a brief regulation in 2 CFR adopting the Governmentwide policies and procedures. One advantage of this approach is that it reduces the total volume of drug-free workplace regulations. A second advantage is that it locates OMB's guidance and all of the agencies' implementing regulations in 2 CFR.

B. The Current Regulatory Actions

As the OMB guidance requires, the NEA is taking two regulatory actions. First, we are removing the drug-free workplace common rule from 45 CFR part 1155. Second, to replace the common rule, we are issuing a brief regulation in 2 CFR part 3256 to adopt the Governmentwide policies and procedures in the OMB guidance.

Please note that the proposed rule for this regulatory change, filed March 23, 2015, originally designated 2 CFR part 3255 for the Implementation of the OMB Guidance. No comments were received regarding the proposed rule during the 30 day comment period. The final rule, however has redesignated this Implementation of OMB Guidance to part 3256 so that the originally-designated part may be used for other regulations.

1. Invitation To Comment

Taken together, these regulatory actions are solely an administrative simplification and are not intended to make any substantive change in policies or procedures. In soliciting comments on these actions, we did not seeking to revisit substantive issues that were resolved during the development of the final common rule in 2003. We invited comments specifically on any unintended changes in substantive content that the new part in 2 CFR would make relative to the common rule at 45 CFR part 1155. No comments were received by the close of the thirty day comment period.

2. Administrative Procedure Act

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), agencies generally propose a regulation and offer interested parties the opportunity to comment before it becomes effective. However, as described in the “Background” section of this preamble, the policies and procedures in this regulation have been proposed for comment two times—one time by federal agencies as a common rule in 2002, and a second time by OMB as guidance in 2008—and adopted each time after resolution of the comments received.

This final rule is solely an administrative simplification that would make no substantive change in the NEA policy or procedures for drug-free workplace. We therefore believe that the rule is noncontroversial and did not expect to receive adverse comments, although we are invited comments on any unintended substantive change this rule makes. No comments were received by the close of the thirty-day comment period and this rule becomes effective on June 11, 2015 without further action.

3. Executive Order 12866

OMB has determined this rule to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

4. Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980(5 U.S.C. 605(b))

This regulatory action will not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities.

5. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 (Sec. 202, Pub. L. 104-4)

This regulatory action does not contain a Federal mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year.

6. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C., Chapter 35)

This regulatory action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

7. Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

This regulatory action does not have Federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Endowment for the Arts amends 2 CFR chapter XXXII and 45 CFR chapter XI as follows:

Title 2—Grants and AgreementsCHAPTER XXXII—NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS1. In title 2, chapter XXXII, add part 3256 to read as follows:PART 3256—REQUIREMENTS FOR DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)Sec.3256.100 What does this part do?3256.105 Does this part apply to me?3256.110 What policies and procedures must I follow?Subpart A—[Reserved]Subpart B—Requirements for Recipients Other Than Individuals3256.200 Whom in the NEA does a recipient other than an individual notify about a criminal drug conviction?Subpart C—Requirements for Recipients Who Are Individuals3256.300 Whom in the NEA does a recipient who is an individual notify about a criminal drug conviction?Subpart D—Responsibilities of NEA Awarding Officials3256.400 What method do I use as an agency awarding official to obtain a recipient's agreement to comply with the OMB guidance?Subpart E—Violations of This Part and Consequences3256.500 Who in the NEA determines that a recipient other than an individual violated the requirements of this part?3256.505 Who in the NEA determines that a recipient who is an individual violated the requirements of this part?Subpart F—[Reserved]Authority:

41 U.S.C. 701 et seq.

§ 3256.100 What does this part do?

This part requires that the award and administration of NEA grants and cooperative agreements comply with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance implementing the portion of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701-707, as amended, hereafter referred to as “the Act”) that applies to grants. It thereby—

(a) Gives regulatory effect to the OMB guidance (subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 182) for the NEA's grants and cooperative agreements; and

(b) Establishes NEA policies and procedures for compliance with the Act that are the same as those of other Federal agencies, in conformance with the requirement in 41 U.S.C. 705 for Governmentwide implementing regulations.

§ 3256.105 Does this part apply to me?

This part and, through this part, pertinent portions of the OMB guidance in subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 182 (see table at 2 CFR 182.115(b)) apply to you if you are a—

(a) Recipient of an NEA grant or cooperative agreement; or

(b) NEA awarding official.

§ 3256.110 What policies and procedures must I follow?

(a) General. You must follow the policies and procedures specified in the applicable sections of the OMB guidance in subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 182, as implemented by this part.

(b) Specific sections of OMB guidance that this part supplements. In implementing the guidance in 2 CFR part 182, this part supplements four sections of that guidance, as shown in the following table. For each of those sections, you must follow the policies and procedures in the OMB guidance, as supplemented by this part.

Section of OMB guidanceSection in

this part

where

supplemented

What the supplementation clarifies(1) 2 CFR 182.225(a)§ 3256.200Whom in the NEA a recipient other than an individual must notify if an employee is convicted for a violation of a criminal drug statute in the workplace.(2) 2 CFR 182.300(b)§ 3256.300Whom in the NEA a recipient who is an individual must notify if he or she is convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity.(3) 2 CFR 182.500§ 3256.500Who in the NEA is authorized to determine that a recipient other than an individual is in violation of the requirements of 2 CFR part 182, as implemented by this part.(4) 2 CFR 182.505 § 3256.505Who in the NEA is authorized to determine that a recipient who is an individual is in violation of the requirements of 2 CFR part 182, as implemented by this part.

(c) Sections of the OMB guidance that this part does not supplement. For any section of OMB guidance in subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 182 that is not listed in paragraph (b) of this section, the NEA's policies and procedures are the same as those in the OMB guidance.

Subpart A—[Reserved]Subpart B—Requirements for Recipients Other Than Individuals§ 3256.200 Whom in the NEA does a recipient other than an individual notify about a criminal drug conviction?

A recipient other than an individual that is required under 2 CFR 182.225(a) to notify Federal agencies about an employee's conviction for a criminal drug offense must notify the NEA awarding official or other designee for each award that it currently has.

Subpart C—Requirements for Recipients Who Are Individuals§ 3256.300 Whom in the NEA does a recipient who is an individual notify about a criminal drug conviction?

A recipient who is an individual and is required under 2 CFR 182.300(b) to notify Federal agencies about a conviction for a criminal drug offense must notify the NEA awarding official or other designee for each award that he or she currently has.

Subpart D—Responsibilities of NEA Awarding Officials§ 3256.400 What method do I use as an agency awarding official to obtain a recipient's agreement to comply with the OMB guidance?

To obtain a recipient's agreement to comply with applicable requirements in the OMB guidance at 2 CFR part 182, you must include the following term or condition in the award: Drug-free workplace. You as the recipient must comply with drug-free workplace requirements in subpart B (or subpart C, if the recipient is an individual) of this part, which adopts the Governmentwide implementation (2 CFR part 182) of sec. 5152-5158 of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-690, Title V, Subtitle D; 41 U.S.C. 701-707).

Subpart E—Violations of This Part and Consequences§ 3256.500 Who in the NEA determines that a recipient other than an individual violated the requirements of this part?

The Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts is the official authorized to make the determination under 2 CFR 182.500.

§ 3256.505 Who in the NEA determines that a recipient who is an individual violated the requirements of this part?

The Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts is the official authorized to make the determination under 2 CFR 182.505.

On May 26, 2015, HUD published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the seventh meeting of the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program negotiated rulemaking committee. The notice advised the public that the seventh meeting of the IHBG negotiated rulemaking committee will be held on Tuesday, August 11, 2015, Wednesday, August 12, 2015, and Thursday, August 13, 2015. The published notice incorrectly listed the location for the meeting. This document corrects the address and location for the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rodger J. Boyd, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4126, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-401-7914 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing-or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

Corrections

In the Federal Register of May 26, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-12648, please make the following corrections:

1. On page 30004, in the third column, correct the ADDRESSES section to read as follows:

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will take place at the DoubleTree-Scottsdale, 5401 North Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale, Arizona 85250-7090.

2. On page 30005, in the second column, correct the first paragraph under Section II to read as follows:

II. Seventh Committee Meeting

The seventh meeting of the IHBG Formula Negotiation Rulemaking Committee will be held on Tuesday, August 11, 2015, Wednesday, August 12, 2015, and Thursday, August 13, 2015. On each day, the session will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m., and adjourn at approximately 5:30 p.m. The meeting will take place at the DoubleTree-Scottsdale, 5401 North Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale, Arizona.

The Secretary amends the Impact Aid Program regulations to reflect changes made to title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA or Act), as amended by various statutes, to delete obsolete provisions, to correct technical errors, and to incorporate relevant statutory and regulatory changes from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its implementing regulations. The Secretary makes minor technical, clarifying, and streamlining changes for the reader's convenience, including reordering the regulations that implement the section of the Act regarding local contribution rates that are based on generally comparable local educational agencies (LEAs).

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

These final regulations make technical changes to the existing regulations for the Impact Aid Program in 34 CFR part 222. The existing regulations contain technical errors and language that is inconsistent with other regulations and with the current provisions of the Impact Aid statute (title VIII of the ESEA) and statutory and regulatory provisions of parts B and C of the IDEA. The Impact Aid statute has been amended by a number of laws in recent years, including, for purposes of these regulations:

• The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239);

These final regulations make technical corrections, align the regulations with statutory changes made to the program and to relevant statutory and regulatory changes related to the IDEA, delete obsolete provisions, and streamline the regulations. There are also recent statutory changes that will require public comment in order to make changes to the regulations. These substantive changes are not included in this notice. We will seek public comment on them in a notice of proposed rulemaking that we intend to publish at a later date.

In implementing the Impact Aid Program, the Secretary generally issues regulations only where absolutely necessary or to provide increased flexibility or reduce burden. We discuss the major technical changes made by these regulations under the sections of the regulations to which they pertain. We do not discuss minor technical changes.

Subpart A—General

• Revising § 222.2 to reflect that the definition of “modernization” in section 8013 of the Act is applicable to this part.

• Revising §§ 222.3 and 222.5 to reflect a change to the ESEA requiring that we use preceding-year data in calculating payments under section 8002 of the Act, which means that applications for sections 8002 and 8003 payments are based on the same year's data.

• Revising § 222.4 to remove outdated references to the submission of applications via U.S. mail.

• Revising § 222.6 to conform to the requirement in section 8005 of the ESEA that we give written notice to an applicant following the applicant's failure to comply with the applicable filing deadline.

• Revising §§ 222.12 and 222.13, concerning overpayment forgiveness, to remove references to obsolete statutory provisions and deadlines since overpayments under those provisions no longer exist.

• Revising § 222.19 to update the list of statutes and regulations that apply to the program.

• Despite the fact that § 222.23 is currently superseded by statutory changes to section 8002 of the Act, we are not removing or revising § 222.23 because those statutory provisions are scheduled to expire.

Subpart C—Payments for Federally Connected Children Under Section 8003(b) of the Act

• Revising § 222.33 to indicate that an LEA makes its membership count before the deadline date upon which Impact Aid applications are due, rather than no later than that date.

• In § 222.36, amending paragraphs (a) and (b) to reflect a statutory change related to application data submitted by newly established LEAs, and removing paragraph (d) as obsolete.

• In § 222.38, updating the statutory references in the heading and paragraph (a) to conform to current statutory designations and renumbering the provisions of the section. In addition, we add as new paragraph (b) provisions that incorporate the statutory requirement that we use data from the most recent fiscal year for which satisfactory data are available for local contribution rates based on one-half of the State average or one-half of the national average if satisfactory expenditure data from the third preceding fiscal year are not available.

• Reorganizing the local contribution rate regulations currently in §§ 222.39 through 222.41 of subpart C to streamline those provisions, remove redundancies, and reflect current law and procedures. In recent fiscal years, approximately 15 State educational agencies (SEAs) have opted to use these provisions. Fourteen of these SEAs used the provision in § 222.39 and only one SEA used the additional factor provisions in current § 222.39(c). For that reason we have reorganized the sections to keep the basic generally comparable regulations under § 222.39 and move the more specific provisions relating to the use of additional factors to § 222.40. The substance of these provisions has not changed; in accordance with section 8003(b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, the methods that SEAs use to determine generally comparable local contribution rates remain unchanged from the regulations in effect on January 1, 1994.

Paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 222.39 describe the method SEAs use to identify generally comparable LEAs for determining local contribution rates, through grouping by grade span/legal classification, size, and location. The current provisions in § 222.40 and the examples also refer to grouping by grade span/legal classification, size, and location for determining local contribution rates; we move these provisions to § 222.39 in order to eliminate redundancy and streamline the provisions. We remove the remaining provisions in current § 222.40, and in the example that follows the section, as they are redundant.

The provisions in new § 222.40, moved from current § 222.39(c), describe the circumstances and procedures for using additional factors to identify a subgroup of generally comparable LEAs, for the limited number of LEAs that qualify for this option. The examples from current § 222.39(c) are retained, with the exception of one example removed for redundancy. Paragraph (e) of new § 222.40 contains the provisions of current § 222.39(c)(4), with the clarification that the SEA certifies the local contribution rate data by submitting that data to the Secretary, in accordance with the current text of section 8003(b)(1)(c)(iii) of the Act.

• Revising § 222.41 to add a reference to new § 222.40 and to add clarifying language regarding the certification of data by the SEA.

• Moving to new § 222.43 the content of current §§ 222.63 and 222.64 (from subpart E). These provisions implement the authority in section 8003(b)(1)(F) of the ESEA regarding increases in the local contribution rate of an LEA that is unable to provide an equivalent level of education due to higher current expenditures caused by unusual geographic factors. Previously, this type of assistance was grouped as one type of heavily impacted district assistance. Although the Act does not currently treat this assistance as heavily impacted district funding, the substantive requirements for the statutory provision remain unchanged. Paragraph (a)(1)-(3) of new § 222.43 contains the information currently in § 222.63(a)-(c), updated to reflect statutory changes. Paragraph (a)(4) of new § 222.43 contains the provisions of current § 222.63(d), specifically that if an LEA is in a State authorized by the Department to take into account Impact Aid under section 8009 of the Act, then it is not eligible to use the “unusual geographic” provision. Paragraph (b) of new § 222.43 contains the contents of current § 222.64(b), with clarifying changes. We remove current § 222.64(a) as it is already covered by the provisions in § 222.43.

• Moving to new § 222.44 the provisions currently found in § 222.73 related to the calculation of maximum payments for eligible LEAs under section 8003(b)(1)(F) of the ESEA. We remove § 222.73(c) in accordance with statutory changes. We also update statutory and regulatory references, and make minor clarifying changes; however, we do not change the content of these provisions.

Subpart D—Payments Under Section 8003(d) of the Act for Local Educational Agencies That Serve Children With Disabilities

• Revising this subpart to incorporate amendments that have been made to parts B and C of the IDEA, through the 2004 statutory changes to IDEA, the 2006 IDEA part B final regulations codified in 34 CFR part 300, and the 2011 IDEA part C final regulations codified in 34 CFR part 303.

• Revising § 222.50 (definitions) by removing the previous definitions of the following terms and replacing them with cross-references to the definitions of those terms in the IDEA regulations: Free appropriate public education or FAPE, individualized education program or IEP, related services, and special education. In addition, we add the following relevant new terms with cross-references to their definitions in the applicable IDEA regulations: Child with a disability, early intervention services, individualized family service plan or IFSP, and infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities. We use the term “infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities” to refer to both “infants and toddlers with disabilities” who are eligible to receive early intervention services under part C of the IDEA and “children with disabilities” who are eligible to receive special education and related services under part B of the IDEA. Combined, these are all children who are eligible to receive services under the IDEA for purposes of the Impact Aid statute (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)(1)(A)) and we refer to them in these regulations as “infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities.” We remove the definition of “preschool” as it is unnecessary due to Impact Aid provisions that permit districts to claim preschool-age students regardless of whether their education is part of elementary education under State law, and to avoid any confusion with respect to the provisions in section 619 and part C of the IDEA regarding preschool children. We remove the definition of “children with specific learning disabilities” because that term is already encompassed in the definition of “children with disabilities” under part B of the IDEA. We remove the definition of “intermediate educational unit” because it has been subsumed in the IDEA definition of LEA in 34 CFR 303.28.

• Revising § 222.51(a) and (b) and adding § 222.51(c), to clarify the existing requirement, from the Impact Aid statute in 20 U.S.C. 7703(d)(1), that LEAs providing a free appropriate public education or early intervention services to infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities under Parts B and C of the IDEA may count for Impact Aid payment purposes only certain of those children who are federally connected and eligible to receive services under the IDEA. Under the Impact Aid statute and the IDEA, in order to count those infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities, the LEA must provide free appropriate public education or early intervention services (whichever is applicable) either directly or through an arrangement with another entity at no cost to the children's parents, and each child being counted must have in place an IEP or IFSP (as appropriate).

• Revising §§ 222.52, 222.53, 222.54, and 222.55 to reflect revisions to part C of the IDEA by including a reference to early intervention services. We also revise § 222.53 to improve its readability and consistency with IDEA statutory provisions regarding prior approval if funds are used for construction.

Subpart E—Payments for Heavily Impacted Local Educational Agencies Under Section 8003(b)(2) of the Act

• Removing subpart E in its entirety and replacing it with a new subpart E, consisting of a new heading and new §§ 222.60 through 222.79. The new subpart E, which governs payments to certain heavily impacted LEAs, reflects statutory changes to section 8003(b)(2) of the ESEA. We explain the statutory changes and implementing regulatory provisions by regulatory section number below.

• New § 222.60 reflects the statutory change that payments to heavily impacted districts are no longer supplemental to other Impact Aid payments under section 8003(b).

• New § 222.61 reflects changes to statutory requirements for data used to determine eligibility of heavily impacted LEAs. This section includes language clarifying that the tax rate requirement for these LEAs may be met by having a tax rate that is at least 95 percent of the average tax rate of either comparable LEAs as identified in § 222.74 or all LEAs in the State, pursuant to section 8003(b)(2)(G) of the Act.

• New § 222.62 reflects changes to the criteria in section 8003(b)(2) of the Act that an LEA must meet to be considered an eligible “continuing” heavily impacted LEA, and the criteria that an LEA must meet to be considered an eligible “new” heavily impacted LEA. An LEA that applies and satisfies the eligibility requirements for two consecutive fiscal years is considered a “new” heavily impacted LEA. Section 222.62(b) reflects the statutory requirement that such an LEA would not receive its first payment as a “new” heavily impacted LEA until the second year of application eligibility.

• New § 222.63 describes the primary statutory categories of a “continuing” heavily impacted LEA. An LEA that applies and satisfies the eligibility requirement of one of the primary statutory categories and that also received a heavily impacted payment for fiscal year 2000 under section 8003(f) of the ESEA is considered a “continuing” heavily impacted LEA.

• New § 222.64 describes the statutory categories of a “new” heavily impacted LEA. These categories are similar to those described in new § 222.63. There is one significant difference in the per pupil expenditure (PPE) requirement for a “new” heavily impacted LEA that has a total enrollment of 350 or more. Those LEAs do not have the option of satisfying the PPE requirement by using the average PPE of all the States. Instead, they can only satisfy this requirement by using the average PPE of all the LEAs within their State. The tax rate requirement for these LEAs may be met by having a tax rate that is at least 95 percent of the average tax rate of either comparable LEAs as identified in § 222.74 or all LEAs in the State, pursuant to section 8003(b)(2)(G) of the ESEA. For an LEA that has a total enrollment of less than 350, the PPE and tax rate are based on one or three comparable LEAs.]

• New § 222.65 connects the new statutory requirements for heavily impacted LEAs with current regulatory provisions for calculating tax rates for those LEAs.

• New § 222.66 reflects the statutory provisions regarding loss of and resumption of eligibility for section 8003(b)(2) payments. In the year that either a “continuing” or “new” heavily impacted LEA loses its eligibility for a payment under section 8003(b)(2), it will still receive a section 8002(b)(2) payment for that year (commonly known as a “hold harmless” payment). However, the payment for the year of ineligibility will be based on the number of children in average daily attendance (ADA) that would be counted for that application if the LEA were eligible.

For resumption of eligibility, a “continuing” heavily impacted LEA must apply and be eligible for two consecutive years in order to receive another section 8003(b)(2) payment. In contrast, a “new” heavily impacted LEA must only apply and be eligible for the year of application to receive another section 8003(b)(2) payment. The examples and charts are provided for additional clarity as to the statutory requirements.

• New § 222.67 contains the provisions of current § 222.65 with updated statutory references, and reflects the statutory change that payments to heavily impacted districts are no longer supplemental to other Impact Aid payments under section 8003(b) of the Act. The revision also clarifies that in cases where certain States are certified by the Department to take into account Impact Aid payments, the State is still forbidden from taking into account the amount of Impact Aid that is due to a district's heavily impacted status. There is no substantive change to these provisions.

• New §§ 222.68-222.73 contain the provisions of current §§ 222.66 through 222.71, revised to reflect statutory changes to the eligibility requirements for heavily impacted districts in section 8003(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, to make clarity changes, and to conform references to the other new regulatory sections of subpart E.

• Section 222.74 is revised to reflect new statutory requirements for the selection of one or three generally comparable LEAs for certain LEAs in section 8003(b)(2) of the ESEA and to update the statutory and regulatory citations.

• Section 222.75 is revised to reflect the new statutory provisions in section 8003(b)(2) of the ESEA that require the Department to use data from the third preceding fiscal year, and that limit the type of applicants for which we calculate the PPE of generally comparable school districts to only those districts described in new § 222.64(a)(2)(ii), that is, “new” districts with less than 350 ADA.

• Section 222.76, which pertains to ratable reduction of payments for years when insufficient funds are appropriated to make full payments under the Act, is removed because section 8003(b)(3) of the Act now contains detailed provisions for years in which insufficient funds are appropriated and applies to all payments, including those for heavily impacted districts, making this provision unnecessary.

Subpart F—Payments to Local Educational Agencies for Children With Severe Disabilities Under Section 8003(g) of the Act

• Removing and reserving subpart F due to the repeal of the statutory authority.

• Revising § 222.151 to remove an obsolete statutory reference and incorporate a statutory change lengthening the time period for filing a written request for an administrative hearing from 30 to 60 days.

• Revising § 222.152 to remove obsolete statutory references.

• Revising § 222.153 to update the addresses to which applicants must mail or deliver those administrative hearing requests. We also add an option for emailing the requests and note our recommendation that applicants elect mail or email delivery.

• Revising § 222.159 to reflect the statutory change that an applicant has 30 working days to seek judicial review following an administrative hearing determination.

Subpart K—Determinations Under Section 8009 of the Act

• Revising §§ 222.161 and 222.163 to conform to a statutory change in section 8009(b)(1) of the Act that eliminated obsolete references to payments under the former Impact Aid law, Public Law 81-874. We also revise § 222.161(a) to reflect changes in section 8009(b)(1) of the Act relating to heavily impacted districts, and to delete a reference to a repealed provision regarding LEAs with high concentrations of children with severe disabilities.

• Revising § 222.165 to incorporate a statutory change lengthening the time period for filing a written request for an administrative hearing from 30 to 60 days.

Executive Order 12866Regulatory Impact Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing these final regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that these final regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements.

Upon review of the costs to LEAs, we have determined there is no financial or resource burden associated with these changes. The LEAs will benefit from an updated and streamlined regulation that will facilitate a better understanding of the program requirements.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, these final regulations merely reflect changes made to title VIII of the ESEA and to the IDEA and its implementing regulations, as well as technical corrections and clarifications to delete obsolete provisions, correct technical errors, and streamline the Impact Aid Program regulations for the reader's convenience. These corrections and clarifications do not affect the substantive rights or obligations of individuals or institutions and do not establish or affect substantive policy. Thus, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Secretary has determined that proposed regulations are unnecessary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

The Secretary certifies that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities that are affected by these regulations are small LEAs receiving Federal funds under this program. These regulations contain technical corrections to current regulations. The changes will not have a significant economic impact on any of the entities affected because the regulations do not impose excessive burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not require you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. We display the valid OMB control number assigned to the collection of information in these final regulations at the end of the affected sections of the regulations.

Intergovernmental Review

This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.041)

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends part 222 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 222—IMPACT AID PROGRAM1-2. The authority citation for part 222 continues to read as follows:Authority:

20 U.S.C. 7701-7714, unless otherwise noted.

3. Section 222.2 is amended by:A. In paragraph (a)(1), adding the term “modernization” in alphabetical order.B. In paragraph (b) introductory text, removing the phrase “section 14101” and adding, in its place, the phrase “section 9101”.C. Revising the first sentence of the definition of “applicant” and the definition of “federally connected children” in paragraph (c).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 222.2What definitions apply to this part?

(c) * * *

Applicant means any LEA that files an application for financial assistance under section 8002 or section 8003 of the Act and the regulations in this part implementing those provisions. * * *

Federally connected children means children described in section 8003 or section 8010(c)(2) of the Act.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(a)(1) and 7710(c); 37 U.S.C. 101)4. Section 222.3 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1), (b)(2), and (c)(1)(i) to read as follows:§ 222.3How does a local educational agency apply for assistance under section 8002 or section 8003 of the Act?

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, on or before January 31 of the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the LEA seeks assistance under section 8002 or section 8003, the LEA must—

(1) File with the Secretary a complete and signed application for payment under section 8002 or section 8003; and

(b) * * *

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, within 60 days after the applicable event occurs but not later than September 30 of the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the LEA seeks assistance under section 8002 or section 8003, the LEA must—

(i) File an application with the Secretary as permitted by paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and

(ii) File a copy of that application with its SEA.

(c)(1) * * *

(i) For an application subject to the filing deadlines in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, on or before February 15 of the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the LEA seeks assistance under section 8002 or section 8003; and

§ 222.4[Amended]5. Section 222.4 is amended by:A. In paragraph (a), removing “, or mailed,” and removing the paragraph (a) designation.B. Removing paragraphs (b) and (c).6. Section 222.5 is revised to read as follows:§ 222.5When may a local educational agency amend its application?

(a) An LEA may amend its application following any of the events described in § 222.3(b)(1) by submitting a written request to the Secretary and a copy to its SEA no later than the earlier of the following events:

(1) The 60th day following the applicable event.

(2) By the end of the Federal fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the LEA seeks assistance.

(b) The LEA also may amend its application based on actual data regarding eligible Federal properties or federally connected children if—

(1) Those data were not available at the time the LEA filed its application (e.g., due to a second membership count of students) and are acceptable to the Secretary; and

(2) The LEA submits a written request to the Secretary with a copy to its SEA no later than the end of the Federal fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the LEA seeks assistance.

(b) The Secretary does not accept or approve for payment any section 8002 or section 8003 application that is not timely filed with the Secretary as described in paragraph (a) of this section, except as follows:

(ii) 60 days from the date of the Secretary's written notice of an LEA's failure to comply with the applicable filing date.

(2) The Secretary reduces the payment for applications described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section by 10 percent of the amount that would have been paid if the LEA had timely filed the application.

8. Section 222.12 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:§ 222.12What overpayments are eligible for forgiveness under section 8012 of the Act?

(a) The Secretary considers as eligible for forgiveness under section 8012 of the Act (“eligible overpayment”) any amount that is more than an LEA was eligible to receive for a particular fiscal year under the Act, except for the types of overpayments listed in § 222.13.

9. Section 222.13 is revised to read as follows:§ 222.13What overpayments are not eligible for forgiveness under section 8012 of the Act?

The Secretary does not consider as eligible for forgiveness under section 8012 of the Act any overpayment caused by an LEA's failure to expend or account for funds properly under the following laws and regulations:

(a) Section 8003(d) of the Act (implemented in subpart D of this part) for certain federally connected children with disabilities.

(b) Section 8007 of the Act for construction.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7712)10. Section 222.16 is amended by revising the section heading to read as follows:§ 222.16What information and documentation must a local educational agency submit for an eligible overpayment to be considered for forgiveness?11. Section 222.19 is amended by:A. Removing paragraphs (b)(3) and (5) and redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(3).B. Adding new paragraph (b)(4).C. Revising paragraph (c).D. Adding paragraph (d).

12. Section 222.22 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (c), and (d) to read as follows:§ 222.22How does the Secretary treat compensation from Federal activities for eligibility and payment purposes?

(b) * * *

(1) The LEA received revenue during the preceding fiscal year that is generated directly from the eligible Federal property or activities in or on that property; and * * *

(c) If an LEA described in paragraph (a) of this section received revenue described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section during the preceding fiscal year that, when added to the LEA's projected total section 8002 payment for the fiscal year for which the LEA seeks assistance, exceeds the maximum payment amount under section 8002(b) for the fiscal year for which the LEA seeks assistance, the Secretary reduces the LEA's projected section 8002 payment by an amount equal to that excess amount.

(d) For purposes of this section, the amount of revenue that an LEA receives during the previous fiscal year from activities conducted on Federal property does not include payments received by the agency from the Secretary of Defense to support—

(1) The operation of a domestic dependent elementary or secondary school; or

(2) The provision of a free public education to dependents of members of the Armed Forces residing on or near a military installation.

Subpart C—Payments for Federally Connected Children Under Section 8003(b) of the Act.12. Subpart C is amended by revising the subpart heading to read as set forth above.13. Section 222.32 is amended by revising the section heading to read as follows:§ 222.32What information does the Secretary use to determine a local educational agency's basic support payment?§ 222.33[Amended]14. Section 222.33 is amended by:A. Removing the words “on or” in paragraph (a)(1).B. Removing “, 7706” from the authority citation.§ 222.34[Amended]15. Section 222.34 is amended by removing “§ 222.5(b)(1)” in paragraph (b) and adding in its place “§ 222.5(b)”.§ 222.35[Amended]16. Section 222.35 is amended by:A. Removing the words “accept a parent-pupil survey form” in paragraph (a)(2) and adding in their place the words “accept an unsigned parent-pupil survey form”.B. Removing “and 7706” from the authority citation.17. Section 222.36 is amended by:A. Revising the section heading.B. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.C. Revising paragraph (b).D. Removing paragraph (d).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 222.36How many federally connected children must a local educational agency have to receive a payment under section 8003?

(a) An LEA is eligible to receive a payment under section 8003 for a fiscal year only if the total number of eligible federally connected children for whom it provided a free public education for the preceding fiscal year was—

(b) An LEA is eligible to receive a payment under section 8003 for a fiscal year on behalf of federally connected children described in section 8003(a)(1)(F) or (G) only if the total number of those children for whom it provided a free public education for the preceding fiscal year was—

(1) At least 1,000 in ADA; or

(2) At least 10 percent of the total number of children in ADA.

18. Section 222.38 is revised to read as follows:§ 222.38What is the maximum basic support payment that a local educational agency may receive under section 8003(b)(1)?

(a) The maximum basic support payment that an LEA may receive under section 8003(b)(1) for any fiscal year is the sum of its total weighted student units under section 8003(a)(2) for the federally connected children eligible to be counted as the basis for payment, multiplied by the greater of the following:

(1) One-half of the State average per pupil expenditure for the third fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the LEA seeks assistance.

(2) One-half of the national average per pupil expenditure for the third fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the LEA seeks assistance.

(3) The local contribution rate (LCR) based on generally comparable LEAs determined in accordance with §§ 222.39-222.41.

(4) The State average per pupil expenditure for the third preceding fiscal year multiplied by the local contribution percentage as defined in section 8013(8) of the Act for that same year.

(b) If satisfactory data from the third preceding fiscal year are not available for the expenditures described in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2), the Secretary uses data from the most recent fiscal year for which data that are satisfactory to the Secretary are available.

§ 222.39How does a State educational agency identify generally comparable local educational agencies for local contribution rate purposes?

(a) To identify generally comparable LEAs within its State for LCR purposes, the State educational agency (SEA) for that State, after appropriate consultation with the applicant LEAs in the State, shall use data from the third fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the LCR is being computed to group all of its LEAs, including all applicant LEAs, as follows:

(1) Grouping by grade span/legal classification alone. Divide all LEAs into groups that serve the same grade span and then subdivide the grade span groups by legal classification, if the Secretary considers this classification relevant and sufficiently different from grade span within the State. As an alternative grade-span division, divide all LEAs into elementary, secondary, or unified grade-span groups, as appropriate, within the State.

(2) Grouping by grade span/legal classification and size. (i) Divide all LEAs into groups by grade span (or the alternative grade-span groups described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section) and legal classification, if relevant and sufficiently different from grade span and size.

(iii) Divide each group into either two subgroups or three subgroups.

(c) The LCR for a “significantly impacted” LEA described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is the LCR of any group in which that LEA would be included based on grade span/legal classification, size, location, or a combination of these factors, if the LEA were not excluded as significantly impacted.

(d) * * *

(6) * * *

Example. An LEA applies for assistance under section 8003 and wishes to recommend to the Secretary an LCR based on generally comparable LEAs within its State.

1. Characteristics of Applicant LEA. The grade span of an applicant LEA is kindergarten through grade 8 (K-8). In the applicant's State, legal classification of LEAs is based on grade span, and thus does not act to further subdivide groups of LEAs.

The ADA of the applicant LEA is above the median ADA of LEAs serving only K-8 in the State.

The applicant LEA is located outside an MSA.

2. Characteristics of Other LEAs Serving Same Grade Span. The SEA of the applicant's State groups all LEAs in its State according to the factors in § 222.39.

a. The SEA identifies the following groups:

(i) One hundred and one LEAs serve only K-8. The SEA has identified a group of 50 LEAs having an ADA above the median ADA for the group of 101, one LEA having an ADA at the median, and a group of 50 LEAs having an ADA below the median ADA; and according to § 222.39(a)(2), the SEA considers 51 LEAs to have an ADA below the median ADA.

(ii) Of the 101 LEAs in the group, the SEA has identified a group of 64 LEAs as being inside an MSA and a group of 37 LEAs as being outside an MSA.

(iii) Among the group of 50 LEAs having an ADA above the median, the SEA has identified a group of 35 LEAs as being inside an MSA and a group of 15 LEAs as being outside an MSA.

(iv) Among the group of 51 LEAs having an ADA at or below the median, the SEA has identified a group of 29 LEAs as being inside an MSA and 22 LEAs as being outside an MSA.

(v) One LEA has 20 percent of its ADA composed of children identified under section 8003(a)(1)(A)-(C) and, therefore, must be excluded from any group it falls within before the SEA computes an LCR for the group. The LEA has an ADA below the median ADA and is located outside an MSA.

b. On the basis of § 222.41, the SEA computes the LCR for each group of generally comparable LEAs that the SEA has identified.

20. Section 222.40 is revised to read as follows:§ 222.40What procedures does a State educational agency use for certain local educational agencies to determine generally comparable local educational agencies using additional factors, for local contribution rate purposes?

(a) To use the procedures in this section, the applicant LEA, for the year of application, must either—

(1)(i) Be located entirely on Federal land; and

(ii) Be raising either no local revenues or an amount of local revenues the Secretary determines to be minimal; or

(2)(i) Be located in a State where State aid makes up no more than 40 percent of the State average per pupil expenditure in the third fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the LCR is being computed;

(ii) In its application, have federally connected children identified under section 8003(a)(1)(A)-(C) equal to at least 20 percent of its total ADA; and

(iii) In its application, have federally connected children identified under section 8003(a)(1)(A)-(G) who were eligible to be counted as the basis for payment under section 8003 equal to at least 50 percent of its total ADA.

(b) If requested by an applicant LEA described in paragraph (a) of this section, the SEA follows the procedures in this section, in consultation with the LEA, to determine generally comparable LEAs using additional factors for the purpose of calculating and certifying an LCR for that LEA.

(c) The SEA identifies—

(1) The subgroup of generally comparable LEAs from the group identified under § 222.39(a)(2) (grouping by grade span/legal classification and size) that includes the applicant LEA; or

(2) For an LEA described in paragraph (a) of this section that serves a different span of grades from all other LEAs in its State (and therefore cannot match any group of generally comparable LEAs under § 222.39(a)(2)), for purposes of this section only, a group using only legal classification and size as measured by ADA.

(d) From the subgroup described in paragraph (c) of this section, the SEA then identifies 10 or more generally comparable LEAs that share one or more additional common factors of general comparability with the applicant LEA described in paragraph (a) of this section, as follows:

(1)(i) The SEA must consider one or more generally accepted, objectively defined factors that affect the applicant's cost of educating its children. Examples of such cost-related factors include location inside or outside an MSA, an unusually large geographical area or an economically depressed area, sparsity of population, and the percentage of its students who are from low-income families or who are children with disabilities, neglected or delinquent children, low-achieving children, or children with limited English proficiency.

(ii) The SEA may not consider cost-related factors that can be varied at the discretion of the applicant LEA or its generally comparable LEAs or factors dependent on the wealth of the applicant LEA or its generally comparable LEAs. Examples of factors that may not be considered include special alternative curricular programs, pupil-teacher ratio, and per pupil expenditures.

(2) The SEA applies the factor or factors of general comparability identified under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section in one of the following ways in order to identify 10 or more generally comparable LEAs for the eligible applicant LEA, none of which may be significantly impacted LEAs:

(i) The SEA identifies all of the LEAs in the group to which the eligible applicant LEA belongs under § 222.39(a)(2) that share the factor or factors. If the subgroup containing the eligible applicant LEA includes at least 10 other LEAs (excluding significantly impacted LEAs), it will be the eligible applicant LEA's new group of generally comparable LEAs. The SEA computes the LCR for the eligible applicant LEA using the data for all of the LEAs in the subgroup except the eligible applicant LEA.

Example 1. An eligible applicant LEA contains a designated economically depressed area, and the SEA, in consultation with the LEA, identifies “economically depressed area” as an additional factor of general comparability. From the group of LEAs under § 222.39(a)(2) that includes the eligible applicant LEA, the SEA identifies two subgroups, those LEAs that contain a designated economically depressed area and those that do not. The entire subgroup identified by the SEA that includes the eligible applicant LEA is that LEA's new group of generally comparable LEAs if it contains at least 10 LEAs.

(ii) After the SEA identifies all of the LEAs in the group to which the eligible applicant LEA belongs under § 222.39(a)(2) that share the factor or factors, the SEA then systematically orders by ADA all of the LEAs in the group that includes the eligible applicant LEA. The SEA may further divide the ordered LEAs into subgroups by using logical division points (e.g., the median, quartiles, or standard deviations) or a continuous interval of the ordered LEAs (e.g., a percentage or a numerical range). If the subgroup containing the eligible applicant LEA includes at least 10 other LEAs (excluding significantly impacted LEAs), it will be the eligible applicant LEA's new group of generally comparable LEAs. The SEA computes the LCR for the eligible applicant LEA using the data for all of the LEAs in the subgroup except the eligible applicant LEA.

Example 2. An eligible applicant LEA serves an unusually high percentage of children with disabilities, and the SEA, in consultation with the LEA, identifies “proportion of children with disabilities” as an additional comparability factor. From the group of LEAs under § 222.39(a)(2) that includes the eligible applicant LEA, the SEA lists the LEAs in descending order according to the percentage of children with disabilities enrolled in each of the LEAs. The SEA divides the list of LEAs into four groups containing equal numbers of LEAs. The group containing the eligible applicant LEA is that LEA's new group of generally comparable LEAs if it contains at least 10 LEAs.

(iii) The SEA may apply more than one factor of general comparability in identifying a new group of 10 or more generally comparable LEAs for the eligible applicant LEA. If the subgroup containing the eligible applicant LEA includes at least 10 other LEAs (excluding significantly impacted LEAs), it will be the eligible applicant LEA's new group of generally comparable LEAs. The SEA computes the LCR for the eligible applicant LEA using the data from all of the LEAs in the subgroup except the eligible applicant LEA.

Example 3. An eligible applicant LEA is very sparsely populated and serves an unusually high percentage of children with limited English proficiency. The SEA, in consultation with the LEA, identifies “sparsity of population” and “proportion of children with limited English proficiency” as additional comparability factors. From the group of LEAs under § 222.39(a)(2) that includes the eligible applicant LEA, the SEA identifies all LEAs that are sparsely populated. The SEA further subdivides the sparsely populated LEAs into two groups, those that serve an unusually high percentage of children with limited English proficiency and those that do not. The subgroup of at least 10 sparsely populated LEAs that serve a high percentage of children with limited English proficiency is the eligible applicant LEA's new group of generally comparable LEAs.

(e)(1) Using the new group of generally comparable LEAs selected under paragraph (d) of this section, the SEA computes the LCR for the eligible applicant LEA according to the provisions of § 222.41.

(2) The SEA certifies the resulting LCR by submitting that LCR to the Secretary and providing the Secretary a description of the additional factor or factors of general comparability and the data used to identify the new group of generally comparable LEAs.

(3) The Secretary reviews the data submitted by the SEA, and accepts the LCR for the purpose of use under section 8003(b)(1)(C)(iii) in determining the LEA's maximum payment under section 8003 if the Secretary determines that it meets the purposes and requirements of the Act and this part.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(1)(C)(iii))21-22. Section 222.41 is amended by revising the section heading, the introductory text, and paragraph (d) to read as follows:§ 222.41 How does a State educational agency compute and certify local contribution rates based upon generally comparable local educational agencies?

Except as otherwise specified in the Act, the SEA, subject to the Secretary's review and approval, computes and certifies an LCR for each group of generally comparable LEAs within its State that was identified using the factors in § 222.39, and § 222.40 if appropriate, as follows:

(d) The SEA certifies the resulting figure for each group as the LCR for that group of generally comparable LEAs to be used by the Secretary under section 8003(b)(1)(C)(iii) in determining the LEA's maximum payment amount under section 8003.

23. Section 222.43 is added to read as follows:§ 222.43 What requirements must a local educational agency meet in order to be eligible for financial assistance under section 8003(b)(1)(F) due to unusual geographic features?

An LEA is eligible for financial assistance under section 8003(b)(1)(F) if the Secretary determines that the LEA meets all of the following requirements—

(a)(1) The LEA is eligible for a basic support payment under section 8003(b), including meeting the maintenance of effort requirements in section 8003(g) of the Act;

(2) The LEA timely applies for assistance under section 8003(b)(1)(F) and meets all other requirements of subparts A and C;

(3) The LEA is meeting the tax rate requirement in § 222.68(c) and the other applicable requirements of §§ 222.68 through 222.72; and

(4) The LEA is not in a State that takes the LEA's payment under section 8003(b)(1)(F) into account in an equalization program that qualifies under section 8009 of the Act.

(b)(1) As part of its section 8003 application, the LEA indicates in writing that it wishes to apply for an “unusual geographic” payment and it will provide the Secretary with documentation upon request that demonstrates that the LEA is unable to provide a level of education equivalent to that provided by its generally comparable LEAs because—

(i) The applicant's current expenditures are affected by unusual geographic factors; and

(ii) As a result, those current expenditures are not reasonably comparable to the current expenditures of its generally comparable LEAs.

(2) The LEA's documentation must include—

(i) A specific description of the unusual geographic factors on which the applicant is basing its request for compensation under this section and objective data demonstrating that the applicant is more severely affected by the factors than any other LEA in its State;

(ii) Objective data demonstrating the specific ways in which the unusual geographic factors affect the applicant's current expenditures so that they are not reasonably comparable to the current expenditures of its generally comparable LEAs;

(iii) Objective data demonstrating the specific ways in which the unusual geographic factors prevent the applicant from providing a level of education equivalent to that provided by its generally comparable LEAs; and

(iv) Any other information that the Secretary may require to make an eligibility determination under this section.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(1)(F))23-24. Section 222.44 is added to read as follows:§ 222.44 How does the Secretary determine a maximum payment for local educational agencies that are eligible for financial assistance under section 8003(b)(1)(F) and § 222.43?

The Secretary determines a maximum payment under section 8003(b)(1)(F) for an eligible LEA, using data from the third preceding fiscal year, as follows:

(a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary increases the eligible LEA's local contribution rate (LCR) for section 8003(b) payment purposes to the amount the Secretary determines will compensate the applicant for the increase in its current expenditures necessitated by the unusual geographic factors identified under § 222.43(b)(2).

(b) The Secretary does not increase the LCR under this section to an amount that is more than—

(1) Is necessary to allow the applicant to provide a level of education equivalent to that provided by its generally comparable LEAs; or

(2) The per pupil share for all children in ADA of the increased current expenditures necessitated by the unusual geographic factors identified under § 222.43, as determined by the Secretary.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(1)(F))25. Section 222.50 is revised to read as follows:§ 222.50 What definitions apply to this subpart?

In addition to the terms referenced or defined in § 222.2, the following definitions apply to this subpart:

Child with a disability as defined in 34 CFR 300.8.

Early intervention services as defined in 34 CFR 303.13.

Free appropriate public education or FAPE as defined in 34 CFR 300.17.

Individualized education program or IEP as defined in 34 CFR 300.22.

Individualized family service plan or IFSP as defined in 34 CFR 303.20.

Infant or toddler with a disability as defined in 34 CFR 303.21.

Infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities, for these regulations, means both a “child with a disability” as defined in 34 CFR 300.8 and an “infant or toddler with a disability” as defined in 34 CFR 303.21.

Related services as defined in 34 CFR 300.34.

Special education as defined in 34 CFR 300.39.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401, 1414, 1432, 1436, 7703, 7705, 7713; 34 CFR parts 300 and 303)26. Section 222.51 is revised to read as follows:§ 222.51 Which children may a local educational agency count for payment under section 8003(d) of the Act?

(a) An LEA may count children described in sections 8003(a)(1)(A)(ii), (a)(1)(B), (a)(1)(C), and (a)(1)(D) of the Act who are eligible for services under the provisions of Part B or Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) (IDEA), for the purpose of computing a payment under section 8003(d) in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(b)(1) An LEA may count a child with a disability described in paragraph (a) of this section who attends a private school or residential program if the LEA has placed or referred the child in accordance with the provisions of section 613 of the IDEA and 34 CFR part 300, subparts C and D.

(2) An LEA may not count a child with a disability described in paragraph (a) of this section who is placed in a private school by his or her parents, but that child may participate in public school programs that use section 8003(d) funds.

(c) An LEA may count infants and toddlers with disabilities described in paragraph (a) of this section if—

(1) The LEA provides early intervention services or FAPE to each of those children—

(i) Either directly or through an arrangement with another entity; and

(ii) The State does not charge a fee or other out-of-pocket cost to the child's parents under the State's system of payments on file with the Secretary required under 34 CFR 303.203(b)(1), 303.520, and 303.521, and there is no other cost to the child's parents (the costs of premiums do not count as out-of-pocket costs); and

(2) Each of those children has an IFSP or IEP (as appropriate).

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. and 7703(d))27. Section 222.52 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:§ 222.52 What requirements must a local educational agency meet to receive a payment under section 8003(d)?

(b) Have in effect written IEPs or IFSPs for all federally connected children with disabilities it claims under section 8003(d); and

28. Section 222.53 is amended by:A. In paragraph (a), removing the phrase “part 300” and adding in its place the phrase “parts 300 and 303”.B. Revising paragraph (c)(1).C. In paragraph (c)(2) introductory text, adding “, and early intervention services for,” following the words “public education of”.D. In paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii), adding “, or early intervention services for,” following the words “public education of”.E. In paragraph (d)(2) introductory text adding the phrase “and for early intervention services” following “special education and related services”.F. In paragraph (d)(2)(i), adding the phrase “and for early intervention services” following “special education and related services”.G. In paragraph (d)(3), adding the phrase “and for early intervention services” following “special education and related services”.

The revision reads as follows:

§ 222.53What restrictions and requirements apply to the use of funds provided under section 8003(d)?

(c) * * *

(1) Expenditures that are reasonably related to the conduct of programs or projects for the free appropriate public education of, or early intervention services for, federally connected children with disabilities, which may include—

(i) Program planning and evaluation; and

(ii) Construction of or alteration to existing school facilities, but only when in accordance with section 605 of the IDEA and when the Secretary authorizes in writing those uses of funds.

§ 222.54[Amended]29. Section 222.54 is amended by adding “, and for early intervention services,” in paragraph (b) following “all funds for programs”.§ 222.55[Amended]30. Section 222.55 is amended by removing the phrase “part 300” and adding, in its place, the phrase “parts 300 and 303”.31. Subpart E is revised to read as follows:Subpart E—Payments for Heavily Impacted Local Educational Agencies Under Section 8003(b)(2) of the ActSec.222.60What are the scope and purpose of this subpart?222.61What data are used to determine a local educational agency's eligibility under section 8003(b)(2) of the Act?222.62How are local educational agencies determined eligible under section 8003(b)(2)?222.63When is a local educational agency eligible as a continuing applicant for payment under section 8003(b)(2)(B)?222.64When is a local educational agency eligible as a new applicant for payment under section 8003(b)(2)(C)?222.65What other requirements must a local educational agency meet to be eligible for financial assistance under section 8003(b)(2)?222.66How does a local educational agency lose and resume eligibility under section 8003(b)(2)?222.67How may a State aid program affect a local educational agency's eligibility for assistance under section 8003(b)(2)?222.68How does the Secretary determine whether a fiscally independent local educational agency meets the applicable tax rate requirement?222.69What tax rates does the Secretary use if real property is assessed at different percentages of true value?222.70What tax rates does the Secretary use if two or more different classifications of real property are taxed at different rates?222.71What tax rates may the Secretary use if substantial local revenues are derived from local tax sources other than real property taxes?222.72How does the Secretary determine whether a fiscally dependent local educational agency meets the applicable tax rate requirement?222.73What information must the State educational agency provide?222.74How does the Secretary identify generally comparable local educational agencies for purposes of section 8003(b)(2)?222.75How does the Secretary compute the average per pupil expenditure of generally comparable local educational agencies under this subpart?222.76-222.79 [Reserved]Subpart E—Payments for Heavily Impacted Local Educational Agencies Under Section 8003(b)(2) of the Act§ 222.60What are the scope and purpose of this subpart?

The regulations in this subpart implement section 8003(b)(2) of the Act, which provides financial assistance to certain heavily impacted local educational agencies (LEAs). The specific eligibility requirements are detailed in §§ 222.62 through 222.66.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2))§ 222.61What data are used to determine a local educational agency's eligibility under section 8003(b)(2) of the Act?

(a) Computations and determinations made with regard to an LEA's eligibility under section 8003(b)(2) in §§ 222.61 through 222.66 of these regulations are based on the LEA's final student, revenue, expenditure, and tax data from the third fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which it seeks assistance.

(b) Except for an LEA described in § 222.64(a)(3)(ii), the LEAs used for meeting the applicable tax rate requirement are the comparable LEAs that are identified in § 222.74 or all LEAs in the applicant's State.

(c) As used in this subpart, the phrase “tax rate for general fund purposes” means “local real property tax rates for current expenditures purposes” as defined in § 222.2. “Current expenditures” is defined in section 8013(4) of the ESEA.

(a) An LEA that is eligible to apply for a “continuing” heavily impacted payment under section 8003(b)(2)(B) is one that received an additional assistance payment under section 8003(f) for fiscal year 2000 and that meets eligibility requirements specified in § 222.63.

(b) An LEA that is eligible to apply for a “new” heavily impacted payment under section 8003(b)(2)(C) is one that did not receive an additional assistance payment under section 8003(f) for fiscal year 2000 and that meets eligibility requirements specified in § 222.64 for two consecutive application years.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2))§ 222.63When is a local educational agency eligible as a continuing applicant for payment under section 8003(b)(2)(B)?

A continuing heavily impacted LEA must have—

(a) The same boundaries as those of a Federal military installation;

(b)(1) An enrollment of federally connected children described in section 8003(a)(1) equal to at least 35 percent of the total number of children in average daily attendance (ADA) in the LEA;

(2) A per pupil expenditure (PPE) that is less than the average PPE of the State in which the LEA is located or of all the States, whichever PPE is greater (except that an LEA with a total student enrollment of less than 350 students shall be determined to have met the PPE requirement); and

(3) A tax rate for general fund purposes of at least 95 percent of the average tax rate of comparable LEAs identified under § 222.74 or all LEAs in the applicant's State;

(c)(1) An enrollment of federally connected children described in section 8003(a)(1) equal to at least 30 percent of the total number of children in ADA in the LEA; and

(2) A tax rate for general fund purposes of at least 125 percent of the average tax rate of comparable LEAs identified under §§ 222.39-40 or of all LEAs in the applicant's State; or

(d) A total enrollment of at least 25,000 students, of which at least 50 percent are children described in section 8003(a)(1) and at least 6,000 of such children are children described in section 8003(a)(1)(A) and (B).

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2)(B))§ 222.64When is a local educational agency eligible as a new applicant for payment under section 8003(b)(2)(C)?

A new heavily impacted LEA must have—

(a)(1)(i) Federally connected children equal to at least 50 percent of the total number of children in average daily attendance (ADA) in the LEA if children described in section 8003(a)(1)(F)-(G) are eligible to be counted for a section 8003(b)(1) payment; or

(ii) Federally connected children equal to at least 40 percent of the total number of children in ADA if children described in section 8003(a)(1)(F)-(G) are not eligible to be counted for a section 8003(b)(1) payment; and

(2)(i) If the LEA has a total ADA of more than 350 children,

(A) A per pupil expenditure (PPE) that is less than the average of the State in which the LEA is located; and

(B) A tax rate for general fund purposes equal to at least 95 percent of the average tax rate of comparable LEAs identified in § 222.74 or of all LEAs in the applicant's State; or

(ii) If the LEA has a total ADA of less than 350 children,

(A) A PPE that is less than the average PPE of one or three generally comparable LEAs identified in § 222.74(b); and

(B) A tax rate equal to at least 95 percent of the average tax rate of one or three generally comparable LEAs identified in § 222.74(b);

(b) The same boundaries as those of a Federal military installation; or

(c)(1) The same boundaries as island property held in trust by the Federal government;

(2) No taxing authority; and

(3) Received a payment under section 8003(b)(1) for fiscal year 2001.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2))§ 222.65What other requirements must a local educational agency meet to be eligible for financial assistance under section 8003(b)(2)?

Subject to § 222.66, an LEA described in § 222.63 or § 222.64 is eligible for financial assistance under section 8003(b)(2) if the Secretary determines that the LEA meets the following requirements:

(a) The LEA timely applies for assistance under section 8003(b)(2) and meets all of the other application and eligibility requirements of subparts A and C of these regulations.

(b) Except for an LEA described in § 222.63(a) or (d), or § 222.64(b) or (c), the LEA meets the applicable tax rate requirement in accordance with the procedures and requirements of §§ 222.68 through 222.74.

(a) A continuing heavily impacted LEA that fails to meet the eligibility requirements in § 222.63 in any fiscal year or a new heavily impacted LEA that received a section 8003(b)(2) payment but then fails to meet the eligibility requirements in § 222.64 will still receive a heavily impacted payment in the first year of ineligibility, based on the number of children in ADA that would be counted for that application if the LEA were eligible.

(b)(1) A continuing heavily impacted LEA may resume eligibility for a heavily impacted payment if it applies in the fiscal year preceding the year for which it seeks eligibility and it meets the eligibility requirements in § 222.63 for both fiscal years.

(2) In the first fiscal year that a continuing heavily impacted LEA qualifies to resume eligibility, it cannot receive a heavily impacted payment but instead will receive a basic support payment under section 8003(b)(1) for that year.

Example:

CONTINUING LEA

In Federal Fiscal Years (FFYs) 1 and 2, a continuing LEA is eligible for a section 8003(b)(2) payment. In FFY 3, the LEA applies but is ineligible for section 8003(b)(2). However, it will still receive a payment under section 8003(b)(2) for FFY 3 (a “hold harmless” payment under § 222.66(a)). For FFY 4, the LEA applies and meets the requirements. The LEA is not eligible to receive a section 8003(b)(2) payment in FFY 4 but is instead eligible for a section 8003(b)(1) payment (see § 222.66(b)). In FFY 5, the LEA applies, meets the requirements, and receives a section 8003(b)(2) payment. The LEA not only must apply one year in advance and meet the section 8003(b)(2) requirements (FFY 4) but it must apply and meet the requirements for the subsequent FFY (year 5). The effects of these requirements on a continuing applicant's status and payments are summarized in the table below.

(c) A new heavily impacted LEA may resume eligibility for a heavily impacted payment if it meets the eligibility requirements in § 222.64 for the fiscal year for which it seeks a payment.

Example:

NEW LEA

A new LEA applies for a section 8003(b)(2) payment and meets the applicable eligibility criteria. The LEA does not receive a section 8003(b)(2) payment in FFY 1 and it must apply and meet the requirements again in FFY 2 before it can receive a (b)(2) payment (see § 222.62(b)). If that new district is then ineligible for a year, it can regain eligibility only if it meets the applicable criteria in a subsequent year. For example, if a new LEA loses its section 8003(b)(2) eligibility in FFY 3 because its tax rate dropped to 94 percent of the average tax rate of comparable districts in the State, that LEA is still entitled to receive a payment under section 8003(b)(2) in FFY 3 if it applies for such payment (a “hold harmless” payment under § 222.66(a)). Then if the LEA applies in FFY 4 and meets the eligibility requirement under section 8003(b)(2), it is once again eligible to receive a section 8003(b)(2) payment (see § 222.66(c)). The effects of these requirements on a new applicant's status and payments are summarized in the table below.

The Secretary determines that an LEA is not eligible for financial assistance under section 8003(b)(2) if—

(a) The LEA is in a State that has an equalized program of State aid that meets the requirements of section 8009; and

(b) The State, in determining the LEA's eligibility for or amount of State aid, takes into consideration the portion of the LEA's payment under section 8003(b)(2) that exceeds what the LEA would receive under section 8003(b)(1).

(a) To determine whether a fiscally independent LEA, as defined in § 222.2(c), meets the applicable tax rate requirement in §§ 222.63(b)(3), 222.63(c)(2), and 222.64(a)(3), the Secretary compares the LEA's local real property tax rate for current expenditure purposes, as defined in § 222.2(c) (referred to in this part as “tax rate” or “tax rates”), with the tax rates of its generally comparable LEAs.

(b) For purposes of this section, the Secretary uses—

(1) The actual tax rate if all the real property in the LEA and its generally comparable LEAs is assessed at the same percentage of true value; or

(2) Tax rates computed under §§ 222.69-222.71.

(c) The Secretary determines that an LEA described in §§ 222.63(b), 222.63(c), or 222.64(a) meets the applicable tax rate requirement if—

(1) The LEA's tax rate is equal to at least 95 percent (or 125 percent under 222.63(c)) of the average tax rate of its generally comparable LEAs;

(2) Each of the LEA's tax rates for each classification of real property is equal to at least 95 percent (or 125 percent under 222.63(c)) of each of the average tax rates of its generally comparable LEAs for the same classification of property;

(3) The LEA taxes all of its real property at the maximum rates allowed by the State, if those maximum rates apply uniformly to all LEAs in the State and the State does not permit any rates higher than the maximum; or

(4) The LEA has no taxable real property.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2))§ 222.69What tax rates does the Secretary use if real property is assessed at different percentages of true value?

If the real property of an LEA and its generally comparable LEAs consists of one classification of property but the property is assessed at different percentages of true value in the different LEAs, the Secretary determines whether the LEA meets the applicable tax rate requirement under § 222.68(c)(1) by using tax rates computed by—

(a) Multiplying the LEA's actual tax rate for real property by the percentage of true value assigned to that property for tax purposes; and

(b) Performing the computation in paragraph (a) of this section for each of its generally comparable LEAs and determining the average of those computed tax rates.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2))§ 222.70What tax rates does the Secretary use if two or more different classifications of real property are taxed at different rates?

If the real property of an LEA and its generally comparable LEAs consists of two or more classifications of real property taxed at different rates, the Secretary determines whether the LEA meets the applicable tax rate requirement under § 222.68(c)(1) or (2) by using one of the following:

(a) Actual tax rates for each of the classifications of real property.

(b) Tax rates computed in accordance with § 222.69 for each of the classifications of real property.

(c) Tax rates computed by—

(1) Determining the total true value of all real property in the LEA by dividing the assessed value of each classification of real property in the LEA by the percentage of true value assigned to that property for tax purposes and aggregating the results;

(2) Determining the LEA's total revenues derived from local real property taxes for current expenditures (as defined in section 8013);

(3) Dividing the amount determined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section by the amount determined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and

(4) Performing the computations in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3) of this section for each of the generally comparable LEAs and then determining the average of their computed tax rates.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2))§ 222.71 What tax rates may the Secretary use if substantial local revenues are derived from local tax sources other than real property taxes?

(a) In a State in which a substantial portion of revenues for current expenditures for educational purposes is derived from local tax sources other than real property taxes, the State educational agency (SEA) may request that the Secretary take those revenues into account in determining whether an LEA in that State meets the applicable tax rate requirement under § 222.68.

(b) If, based upon the request of an SEA, the Secretary determines that it is appropriate to take the revenues described in paragraph (a) of this section into account in determining whether an LEA in that State meets the applicable tax rate requirement under § 222.68, the Secretary uses tax rates computed by—

(1) Dividing the assessed value of each classification of real property in the LEA by the percentage of true value assigned to that property for tax purposes and aggregating the results;

(2) Determining the LEA's total revenues derived from local tax sources for current expenditures (as defined in section 8013);

(3) Dividing the amount determined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section by the amount determined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and

(4) Performing the computations in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of this section for each of the generally comparable LEAs and then determining the average of those computed tax rates.

(a) If an LEA is fiscally dependent, as defined in § 222.2(c), the Secretary compares the LEA's imputed local tax rate, calculated under paragraph (b) of this section, with the average tax rate of its generally comparable LEAs, calculated under paragraph (c) of this section, to determine whether the LEA meets the applicable tax rate requirement.

(b) The Secretary imputes a local tax rate for a fiscally dependent LEA by—

(1) Dividing the assessed value of each classification of real property within the boundaries of the general government by the percentage of true value assigned to that property for tax purposes and aggregating the results;

(2) Determining the amount of locally derived revenues made available by the general government for the LEA's current expenditures (as defined in section 8013); and

(3) Dividing the amount determined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section by the amount determined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(c) The Secretary performs the computations in paragraph (b) of this section for each of the fiscally dependent generally comparable LEAs and the computations in §§ 222.68 through 222.71, whichever is applicable, for each of the fiscally independent generally comparable LEAs and determines the average of all those tax rates.

(d) The Secretary determines that a fiscally dependent LEA described in § 222.63(b) or § 222.64(a) meets the applicable tax rate requirement if its imputed local tax rate is equal to at least 95 percent of the average tax rate of its generally comparable LEAs.

(e) The Secretary determines that a fiscally dependent LEA described in § 222.63(c) meets the applicable tax rate requirement if its imputed local tax rate is equal to at least 125 percent of the average tax rate of its generally comparable LEAs.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2))§ 222.73 What information must the State educational agency provide?

The SEA of any State with an LEA applying for assistance under section 8003(b)(2) shall provide the Secretary with relevant information necessary to determine the PPE for all LEAs in the State and whether the LEA meets the applicable tax rate requirement under this subpart.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2))§ 222.74 How does the Secretary identify generally comparable local educational agencies for purposes of section 8003(b)(2)?

(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary identifies generally comparable LEAs for purposes of this subpart in accordance with the local contribution rate procedures described in §§ 222.39 through 222.40.

(b) For applicant LEAs described in § 222.64(a)(2)(ii) and (a)(3)(ii), to identify the one or three generally comparable LEAs, the Secretary uses the following procedures:

(1) The Secretary asks the SEA of the applicant LEA to identify generally comparable LEAs in the State by first following the directions in § 222.39(a)(4), using data from the preceding fiscal year. The SEA then removes from the resulting list any LEAs that are significantly impacted, as described in § 222.39(b)(1), except the applicant LEA.

(2) If the remaining LEAs are not in rank order by total ADA, the SEA lists them in that order.

(3) The LEA may then select as its generally comparable LEAs, for purposes of section 8003(b)(2) only, one or three LEAs from the list that are closest to it in size as determined by total ADA (i.e., the next one larger or the next one smaller, or the next three larger LEAs, the next three smaller, the next two larger and the next one smaller, or the next one larger and the next two smaller).

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2))§ 222.75 How does the Secretary compute the average per pupil expenditure of generally comparable local educational agencies under this subpart?

For applicant LEAs described in § 222.64(a)(2)(ii), the Secretary computes average per pupil expenditures (APPE) by dividing the sum of the total current expenditures for the third preceding fiscal year for the identified generally comparable LEAs by the sum of the total ADA of those LEAs for the same fiscal year.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2))§§ 222.76-222.79 [Reserved]Subpart F [Removed and Reserved]32. Subpart F, consisting of §§ 222.80 through 222.85, is removed and reserved.§ 222.151 [Amended]33. Section 222.151 is amended by:A. In paragraph (a), removing the phrase “or Pub. L. 81-874”.B. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the number “30” and adding in its place the number “60”.§ 222.152 [Amended]34. Section 222.152 is amended in paragraphs (a)(1) and (c) by removing the phrase “or Pub. L. 81-874” from each of those paragraphs.35. Section 222.153 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:§ 222.153 How must a local educational agency request an administrative hearing?

(2) If it hand-delivers the hearing request, deliver it to the Director, Impact Aid Program, Room 3E105, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-6244; or

(3) If it emails the hearing request, send it to Impact.Aid@ed.gov.

Note to paragraph (a): The Secretary encourages applicants requesting an Impact Aid hearing to mail or email their requests. Because of enhanced security procedures, building access for non-official staff may be limited. Applicants should be prepared to mail their hearing requests if they or their courier are unable to obtain access to the building.

§ 222.159 [Amended]36. Section 222.159 is amended by removing the phrase “60 days” and adding, in its place, the phrase “30 working days (as determined by the LEAs or State)”.37. Section 222.161 is amended by:A. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii).B. Removing paragraph (a)(1)(iii).C. Revising paragraph (a)(5).D. In paragraph (c), amending paragraph (4) of the definition of “current expenditures” by adding the word “or” after the semicolon.E. In paragraph (c), amending paragraph (5) of the definition of “current expenditures” by removing the phrase “or under Pub. L. 81-874” and removing “; or” and adding in its place a period.F. In paragraph (c), removing paragraph (6) of the definition of “current expenditures”.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 222.161 How is State aid treated under section 8009 of the Act?

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) A State may not take into consideration—

(A) That portion of an LEA's payment that is generated by the portion of a weight in excess of one under section 8003(a)(2)(B) of the Act (children residing on Indian lands);

(B) Payments under section 8003(d) of the Act (children with disabilities); or

(C) The amount that an LEA receives under section 8003(b)(2) that exceeds the amount the LEA would receive if eligible under section 8003(b)(1) and not section 8003(b)(2) (heavily impacted LEAs).

(5) A State may not take into consideration payments under the Act before its State aid program has been certified by the Secretary.

§ 222.163 [Amended]38. Section 222.163 is amended by:A. In paragraph (a), removing the phrase “and Pub. L. 81-874”.B. In paragraph (c), removing the phrase “and Pub. L. 81-874” and “or payments under Pub. L. 81-874”.§ 222.165 [Amended]39. Section 222.165 is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing the number “30” and adding in its place the number “60”.§ 222.175 [Amended]40. Section 222.175 is amended by:A. Removing paragraphs (a)(4) and (8) and redesignating paragraphs (a)(5) through (7) as paragraphs (a)(4) through (6), respectively.B. Redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c) and adding a new paragraph (b).

The addition reads as follows:

§ 222.175 What regulations apply to recipients of funds under this program?

(b) The OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485, and the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is amending the rules related to collective trademarks, collective service marks, and collective membership marks (together “collective marks”), and certification marks to clarify application requirements, allegations of use requirements, multiple-class application requirements, and registration maintenance requirements for such marks. These rule changes codify current USPTO practice set forth in the USPTO's “Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure” (“TMEP”) and precedential case law. These changes also permit the USPTO to provide the public more detailed guidance regarding registering and maintaining registrations for these types of marks and promote the efficient and consistent processing of such marks. Further, the USPTO is amending several rules beyond those related to collective marks and certification marks to create consistency with rule changes regarding such marks and to streamline the rules, by consolidating text and incorporating headings, for easier use.

DATES:

This rule is effective on July 11, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cynthia Lynch, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, at (571) 272-8742 or tmpolicy@uspto.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary: Purpose: As noted above, the revised rules benefit the public by providing more comprehensive and specific guidance regarding registering collective marks and certification marks. The current rules incorporate by reference the trademark and service mark application rules; however, wording in the trademark and service mark application rules sometimes may not be specifically suited to collective and certification mark applications. Therefore, the USPTO is revising the rules in parts 2 and 7 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations to codify current USPTO practice in TMEP sections 1302, 1303 et seq., 1304, and 1306, and to state clearly and provide sufficient detail regarding the requirements for collective and certification mark applications. The USPTO is also harmonizing registration maintenance requirements with application requirements where appropriate.

Further, rule changes beyond those related to collective marks and certification marks provide consistency with changes made regarding those marks and streamline the rules, by consolidating text and incorporating headings, for easier use.

To provide additional context for the ensuing discussion of the amended and revised rules regarding collective marks and certification marks, the following is a brief description of those types of marks.

There are two types of collective marks as defined by section 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended (“the Act”): (1) collective trademarks or collective service marks; and (2) collective membership marks. 15 U.S.C. 1127. A collective trademark or collective service mark is used by members of a collective organization to identify and distinguish their goods or services from those of nonmembers. TMEP section 1303. By contrast, collective membership marks are used by members of a collective organization to indicate membership in the collective membership organization. TMEP section 1304.02.

Certification marks are used by authorized users to indicate the following: (1) goods or services have been certified as to quality, materials, or mode of manufacture; (2) goods or services have been certified to originate in a specific geographic region; and/or (3) the work or labor on goods or for services was certified to have been performed by a member of a union or other organization, or to certify that the performer meets certain standards. TMEP section 1306.01. A certification mark is similar to a collective trademark or collective service mark except that the users are not members of a collective organization. See TMEP section 1306.09(a). That is, a collective trademark or collective service mark is used by members of an organization who meet the collective organization's standards of admission, while a certification mark is used by parties whose products or services meet the certifying organization's established standards.

Summary of Major Provisions: As stated above, the USPTO is revising the rules in parts 2 and 7 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations to codify current USPTO practice in TMEP sections 1302, 1303 et seq., 1304, and 1306, and to state clearly, and provide additional detail regarding, the requirements for collective and certification mark applications, as well as to harmonize registration maintenance requirements with application requirements where appropriate. Further, the USPTO is revising additional rules within these parts for consistency and clarity.

Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is not economically significant under Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).

Proposed Rule and Request for Comments

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2014, at 79 FR 9678, and in the Official Gazette on April 8, 2014. The USPTO received comments from two intellectual property organizations. These comments are posted on the USPTO's Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/Fr_Notice_comments.jsp and are addressed below.

Part 2: Rules of Practice in Trademark CasesRules Applicable to Trademark Cases

The USPTO is amending § 2.2, regarding definitions, and adding terms to this section to enable the deletion of repetitious wording in the rules wherever possible. Specifically, § 2.2(h) is amended to clarify that the definition of “international application” is limited to an application seeking an extension of protection of an international registration in an initial designation. Also, § 2.2(i) through (n) is added to set forth the following new definitions: subsequent designation; holder;use in commerce or use of the mark in commerce; bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce;bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce; and verified statement, verify,verified, or verification.

Declarations

The USPTO is revising § 2.20, regarding declarations in lieu of oaths, as follows: in the introductory text, delete “verification” to correspond with the definition of that term in § 2.2(n), and add the term “declaration;” in the second paragraph delete “undersigned” and replace it with “signatory” and delete “document” and replace it with “submission.”

Application for Registration

The USPTO is amending § 2.22(a)(8) to delete the language “and at http://www.uspto.gov” to codify current USPTO practice that the identification in a TEAS Plus application must be selected from the USPTO's “U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual” available in the TEAS Plus application form.

The USPTO is amending the rule title of § 2.32 to “Requirements for a complete trademark or service mark application.” In addition, § 2.32(f) is added to cross-reference § 2.44 for the requirements for collective mark applications, and § 2.32(g) is added to cross-reference § 2.45 for the requirements for certification mark applications.

The USPTO is revising § 2.33, regarding verified statements for trademarks or service marks, to ensure the language corresponds with other rules, including the definitions in § 2.2. Section 2.33 is also revised as follows: amend the rule title to “Verified statement for a trademark or service mark;” revise § 2.33(e)(1) to include language similar to the current rule, “that the U.S. Congress can regulate on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the international application/subsequent designation;” revise § 2.33(e)(3), to correspond with § 2.33(e)(1), and to amend “international application/registration” to “international application/subsequent designation;” and add § 2.33(f) to set forth the type of verified statement required for concurrent use applications under § 2.42. Further, in response to a comment submitted regarding § 2.34(a)(1)(i), the USPTO is amending § 2.33(c) slightly for purposes of consistency with § 2.34(a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i), and (a)(4)(ii); § 2.44(b); and § 2.45(b).

The USPTO is amending § 2.34, regarding filing bases for trademark or service mark applications, to ensure the language corresponds with other rules, including the new definitions in § 2.2; to delete the definition of “commerce” in current § 2.34(c) as redundant of section 45 of the Act; and to correct a typographical error. Further, the rule title is amended to “Bases for filing a trademark or service mark application.” Section 2.34(a)(1)(iv) is also amended to delete “actually” as a redundant term for consistency with amendments to § 2.56(b)(2) and (c) regarding specimens, § 2.76(b)(2) regarding amendments to allege use, and § 2.88(b)(2) regarding statements of use. Lastly, § 2.34(b)(1)-(3) is revised by condensing the text in § 2.34(b), and adding the title “More than one basis.”

Comment: One commenter noted that, in § 2.34(a)(1)(i) where the verification is not filed with the initial application, that rule appeared to require an applicant to aver that the mark “has been” in continuous use as of the application filing date; that is, when subsequently filing the verified statement, a declarant must affirm that the mark is in use as of the initial application filing date and has been in continuous use from that date until the date the verification is submitted. The commenter suggested retaining the language in the current rule and using “was in use in commerce as of the application filing date.” The commenter similarly noted that this comment applies to the subsections relating to applications filed under section 1(b) or 44 of the Act.

Response: The commenter's suggestion is adopted. The language in the current rule has always been interpreted as including a presumption that an applicant's use or bona fide intent is continuous after filing an application; thus, the current language is acceptable and sufficient to incorporate that presumption. Thus, the USPTO will retain “was in use in commerce” in § 2.34(a)(1)(i) and “had a bona fide intention” in § 2.34(a)(2), (a)(3)(i), and (a)(4)(ii). In addition, § 2.33(c), § 2.44(b), and § 2.45(b) are revised to correspond with the changes made to these subsections.

The USPTO is revising § 2.35, regarding adding, deleting, or substituting bases, to include the requirements for collective marks and certification marks for consistency with revisions made to § 2.44(c). Specifically, § 2.35 is amended as follows: in § 2.35(b)(1), add cross-references to § 2.44 and § 2.45 for requirements for a new basis in a collective or certification mark application; in § 2.35(b)(6), add “or collective membership organization” to indicate which goods, services, or organization the added or substituted basis will apply; in § 2.35(b)(7), add “or collective membership organization” to indicate which goods, services, or organization were covered by the deleted basis; and in § 2.35(b)(8), add text to clarify that an applicant may not amend an application to seek both sections 1(b) and 1(a) of the Act for identical goods or services or the same collective membership organization.

The USPTO is revising § 2.41, regarding proof of distinctiveness under section 2(f) of the Act, to specify the type of proof required to establish such a claim for trademarks, service marks, collective marks, and certification marks, and to make other changes consistent with current USPTO practice. Specifically, § 2.41 is revised as follows: in § 2.41(a), add the title “For a trademark or service mark” and set forth in § 2.41(a)(1)-(3) most of the current text in existing § 2.41; and in § 2.41(b), add the title “For a collective trademark or collective service mark” and set forth in § 2.41(b)(1)-(3) the requirements for collective trademarks or collective service marks. The following is also added to § 2.41: in § 2.41(c), set forth the requirements for collective membership marks; and in § 2.41(d), set forth the requirements for certification marks. Further, additional revisions in § 2.41 are added to correspond with the new definitions in § 2.2 and to include subsections with subheadings that set forth the three types of proof that can be submitted to establish distinctiveness under 15 U.S.C. 1052(f). In addition, § 2.41(a)(1), (c)(1), and (d)(1) add the term “active” to clarify and codify current USPTO practice, see TMEP section 1212.04(d), that evidence of distinctiveness must be based on ownership of an active prior registration on the Principal Register or under the Trademark Act of 1905. Further, § 2.41(a)(1) and (d)(1) clarify that such registration must be for goods or services sufficiently similar to those in the application, and § 2.41(c)(1) adds that the nature of the collective membership organization must be sufficiently similar to the collective membership organization in the application, such that these requirements in § 2.41(a)(1), (d)(1), and (c)(1) codify precedential case law and current USPTO practice. See In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1347, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001), In re Rogers, 53 USPQ2d 1741, 1744 (TTAB 1999), TMEP sections 1212.04(c), 1212.09(a). Lastly, § 2.41(e) excludes from § 2.41(d) geographic matter in certification marks certifying regional origin, because 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(2) does not apply to such terms. See TMEP section 1306.02.

Comment: One commenter suggested that § 2.41(e) be revised to clarify further that, although geographic indications are considered certification marks, § 2.41(d) does not apply to geographic indications of origin. The commenter suggested revising § 2.41(e) as follows: “Paragraph (d) does not apply to geographical matter in a certification mark certifying regional origin because section 2(e)(2) of the Act does not apply to certification marks that are indications of regional origin.”

Response: The USPTO agrees with this further clarification and adopts the commenter's suggestion.

The USPTO is revising § 2.42, regarding concurrent use requirements, to incorporate requirements for collective marks and certification marks, as well as to make other changes consistent with current USPTO practice. Specifically, the USPTO is adding § 2.42(a) to require an application for registration for lawful concurrent use to assert use in commerce in accordance with current USPTO practice, see TMEP section 1207.04(b), and the USPTO's “Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure” section 1101.01, and that such application be for a mark seeking registration on the Principal Register under the Act, in accordance with current § 2.99(g), and include all relevant application requirements, including § 2.44 for collective marks or § 2.45 for certification marks, if applicable. In addition, § 2.42(b) is added to enumerate the additional requirements for concurrent use applications set forth in the existing second sentence of current § 2.42 and to modify such text to incorporate the requirements for collective marks and certification marks. Further, § 2.42(c) is added to cross-reference current § 2.73, pertaining to amending an application to recite concurrent use, and § 2.42(d) is added to cross-reference current § 2.99, pertaining to concurrent use proceedings at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

The USPTO is revising § 2.44, regarding collective marks, to include all requirements for a collective mark application in one rule. Specifically, § 2.44 is revised as follows: in § 2.44(a), enumerate the application requirements for a collective mark, incorporating the relevant application requirements from current § 2.32, regarding the requirements for a complete trademark or service mark application, current § 2.44, and current USPTO practice, see TMEP sections 1303.02 et seq. for collective trademarks and collective service marks, and TMEP section 1304.08(c)-(f) for collective membership marks; and in § 2.44(b), specify the requirements for a verified statement that was not filed within a reasonable time after signing or was omitted from the application to correspond primarily with § 2.33(c) and § 2.34(a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i), and (a)(4)(ii). In addition, the following is added to § 2.44: in § 2.44(c), specify the requirements for claiming more than one filing basis in the application to correspond with § 2.34(b); in § 2.44(d), specify the requirements for the verification in a concurrent use application to correspond with § 2.33(f); and in § 2.44(e), cross-reference the multiple-class application requirements rule in § 2.86 for consistency with § 2.32(e). Further, § 2.44 is revised to correspond with the new definitions in § 2.2. Also, the rule title is amended to “Requirements for a complete collective mark application” for consistency with the rule title of § 2.32 regarding trademark and service mark application requirements. Further, § 2.44(a)(4)(v) is slightly revised, to correspond with § 2.33(e)(1), to amend the language to include “that the U.S. Congress can regulate on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the international application/subsequent designation.” Additionally, in response to a comment submitted regarding § 2.34(a)(1)(i), the USPTO is further amending § 2.44(b) to correspond with slight changes to § 2.33(c); § 2.34(a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i), and (a)(4)(ii); and § 2.45(b). Finally, § 2.44(c) is further revised to clarify that an applicant may claim more than one filing basis in a collective membership mark application.

The USPTO is revising § 2.45, regarding certification marks, to include all requirements for a certification mark application in one rule, and to be consistent with the formatting of § 2.44 for collective mark application requirements. Specifically, § 2.45 is revised as follows: in § 2.45(a), enumerate the application requirements for a certification mark, incorporating the relevant application requirements from current § 2.32, regarding the requirements for a complete trademark or service mark application, current § 2.45, and current USPTO practice, see TMEP sections 1306.06 et seq.; and in § 2.45(b), specify the requirements for a verified statement that was not filed within a reasonable time after signing or was omitted from the application to correspond primarily with § 2.33(c) and § 2.34(a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i), and (a)(4)(ii) and § 2.44(b). In addition, the following is added to § 2.45: in § 2.45(c), specify the requirements for claiming more than one filing basis in the application to correspond with § 2.34(b) and § 2.44(c); in § 2.45(d), specify the requirements for the verification in a concurrent use application to correspond with § 2.33(f) and § 2.44(d); in § 2.45(e), cross-reference the multiple-class application requirements rule in § 2.86 for consistency with § 2.32(e) and § 2.44(e); and in § 2.45(f), prohibit a single application from including both a certification mark and another type of mark, because the USPTO's databases preclude capturing different legal requirements for multiple types of marks in a single application, and also prohibit the registration of the same mark for the same goods and/or services as both a certification mark and another type of mark, in accordance with sections 4 and 14(5)(B) of the Act and current USPTO practice, see TMEP section 1306.05(a). Further, § 2.45 is revised to correspond with the new definitions in § 2.2. Also, the rule title is amended to “Requirements for a complete certification mark application; restriction on certification mark application” for consistency with the rule title of § 2.32 regarding trademark and service mark application requirements and § 2.44 regarding collective mark application requirements. Additionally, § 2.45(a)(4)(v)(B) is slightly revised, to correspond with § 2.33(e)(1), to amend the language to include “that the U.S. Congress can regulate on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the international application/subsequent designation.” Finally, in response to a comment submitted regarding § 2.34(a)(1)(i), the USPTO is further amending § 2.45(b) to correspond with slight changes to § 2.33(c); § 2.34(a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i), and (a)(4)(ii); and § 2.44(b).

Specimens

The USPTO is amending § 2.56(b)(2) and (c), regarding specimens, to delete the term “actually” as a redundant term and for consistency with similar amendments to § 2.34(a)(1)(iv), § 2.76(b)(2), § 2.88(b)(2), and § 2.161(g). Additionally, § 2.56(b)(5) is amended to delete “to certify” and replace it with “to reflect certification of.” Lastly, § 2.56(d)(3), regarding bulky specimens, is revised as follows: “In the absence of non-bulky alternatives, another appropriate medium may be designated as acceptable by the Office.”

Comment: One commenter suggested that § 2.56(d)(3), pertaining to bulky specimens, be revised to omit references to specific forms of media because of the rapid evolution of technology related to such media and to minimize future amendments to this rule. The commenter suggested revising this rule to “In the absence of non-bulky alternatives, the Office may accept a specimen of use in any appropriate medium.”

Response: The USPTO agrees that technology related to data storage media is rapidly evolving and that listing specific types of media could require amendment to this rule at a subsequent date. Thus, the USPTO is revising § 2.56(d)(3) to omit references to specific forms of media and to state that, in the absence of non-bulky alternatives, another appropriate medium may be designated as acceptable by the USPTO.

The USPTO is amending § 2.71(a), regarding amendments to the identification of goods and/or services, to reference amending the description of the nature of a collective membership mark. In addition, § 2.71(b)-(d) is amended to change existing text to correspond with § 2.2(n). Further, § 2.71(e) is added to set forth that an amendment that would materially alter a certification statement pursuant to § 2.45(a)(4)(i)(A) and (a)(4)(ii)(A), is not permitted, which is consistent with § 2.173(f) regarding such amendments after registration.

The USPTO is amending § 2.74(b), regarding the form and signature of an amendment, to change existing text to cross-reference the definition of “verification” in § 2.2(n).

The USPTO is amending § 2.77(a)(1), regarding permissible amendments submitted between a notice of allowance and the filing of a statement of use, to include deletion of the entire identification for a collective membership mark.

The USPTO is amending § 2.76, regarding amendments to allege use, to include the relevant requirements for collective marks and certification marks, and to be consistent with § 2.88 for statements of use. Specifically, § 2.76 is amended as follows: in § 2.76(a), add the title “When to file an amendment to allege use;” in § 2.76(a)(1) and (a)(2), include most of the text from current § 2.76(a) and (c), except amend the language in the last sentence of current § 2.76(a)(1) regarding the USPTO returning an untimely filed amendment to allege use to indicate that under current practice the USPTO will not review such an amendment, see TMEP section 1104.03(b)-(c), and the last sentence in current § 2.76(c), which is slightly amended and moved to § 2.76(b)(1)(iii); in § 2.76(b), add the title “A complete amendment to allege use” and include in § 2.76(b)(1)-(5) the text from current § 2.76(b) and (c) and the requirements for collective marks and certification marks, and in § 2.76(b)(6), require the title “Amendment to Allege Use” at the top of the first page of the document for those documents not filed using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS); in § 2.76(c), add the title “Minimum filing requirements for a timely filed amendment to allege use” and include the text from current § 2.76(e) and change existing text to “verified statement” to correspond with § 2.2(n); in § 2.76(d), add the title “Deficiency notification” and include the text from current § 2.76(g); in § 2.76(e), add the title “Notification of refusals and requirements” and include most of the text from current § 2.76(f), except the second to last sentence regarding the USPTO providing notification of acceptance of an amendment to allege use because current practice is that a notice of approval for publication provides such notice, and the last sentence which is slightly amended and moved to § 2.76(h); in § 2.76(f), add the title “Withdrawal” and include the text from current § 2.76(h); in § 2.76(g), add the title “Verification not filed within reasonable time,” and include the text from current § 2.76(i) and change existing text to “verified statement” to correspond with § 2.2(n); in § 2.76(h), add the title “An amendment to allege use is not a response but may include amendments,” include slightly revised text from the last sentence of current § 2.76(f), and clarify that an amendment to allege use may include amendments in accordance with § 2.59 and § 2.71 through § 2.75; in § 2.76(i), specify the requirements for the verification in a concurrent use application under § 2.42; and in § 2.76(j), add the title “Multiple-class application.” Additionally, the USPTO is further amending § 2.76(g) for consistency with revisions made in response to a comment to § 2.34(a)(1)(i) regarding bases for filing a trademark or service mark application and to include the relevant statement for collective marks and certification marks. Finally, the USPTO is further amending § 2.76(i) slightly for consistency with revisions made to § 2.88(i) for a statement of use after a notice of allowance.

Classification

The USPTO is amending § 2.86, regarding multiple-class application requirements, to include the requirements for collective marks and certification marks, and to make other changes consistent with current USPTO practice. Specifically, § 2.86 is amended as follows: set forth the rule title as “Multiple-class applications;” in § 2.86(a), set forth the requirements for a single trademark, service mark, and/or collective mark application for multiple classes, clarifying that such an application must satisfy either the trademark or service mark application requirements in § 2.32 or the collective mark application requirements in § 2.44, in addition to providing the applicable goods, services, or nature of the collective membership organization in each appropriate international or U.S. class, and providing a fee, dates of use, and a specimen for each class based on use in commerce or a bona fide intent statement for each class based on section 1(b), 44, or 66(a) of the Act; in § 2.86(b), set forth the requirements for a single certification mark application for goods and services, clarifying that such multiple-class application must satisfy the certification mark application requirements in § 2.45, in addition to identifying the applicable goods and services in each appropriate U.S. class for applications filed under section 1 or 44 of the Act or in the international classes assigned by the World Intellectual Property Organization's International Bureau for applications filed under section 66(a) of the Act, and providing a fee, dates of use, and a specimen for each class based on use in commerce or a bona fide intent statement for each class based on section 1(b), 44, or 66(a) of the Act; and in § 2.86(c), amend to include the text in the last sentence of current § 2.86(a)(3) regarding an applicant not claiming both section 1(a) and 1(b) of the Act for identical goods or services in a single application. In addition, the following is added to § 2.86: in § 2.86(d), restrict a single application based on section 1 or 44 of the Act from including goods or services in U.S. Classes A and/or B and either goods or services in any international class or with a collective membership organization in U.S. Class 200, and restrict a single application based on section 66(a) of the Act from including goods, services, or a collective membership organization in any international class, for consistency with § 2.45(f); in § 2.86(e), add the text from current § 2.86(b) regarding multiple-class requirements for amendments to allege use and statements of use; and in § 2.86(f), add the text in current § 2.86(c) regarding issuing a single registration certificate for multiple-class applications.

Post Notice of Allowance

The USPTO is amending § 2.88, regarding statements of use, to include the relevant requirements for collective marks and certification marks, and to be consistent with § 2.76 for amendments to allege use. Specifically, § 2.88 is amended as follows: set forth the rule title as “Statement of use after notice of allowance;” in § 2.88(a), add the title “When to file a statement of use;” in § 2.88(a)(1), include most of the text from current § 2.88(a), except delete the language regarding the USPTO returning a premature statement of use filed prior to issuance of a notice of allowance because under current practice the USPTO will not return or review it, see TMEP section 1109.04; in § 2.88(a)(2), include most of the text from current § 2.88(c), except for the last sentence which is slightly amended and moved to § 2.88(b)(1)(iii); in § 2.88(b), add the title “A complete statement of use,” include in § 2.88 (b)(1)-(3) the text from current § 2.88(b), in § 2.88(b)(1)(iii) additionally include most of the last sentence from current § 2.88(c), in § 2.88(b)(1)(iv) additionally include the text from current § 2.88(i)(1)-(2), in § 2.88 (b)(6) require the title “Statement of Use” at the top of the first page of the document for those documents not filed using the TEAS, and in § 2.88(b) incorporate the requirements for collective marks and certification marks and change text to “verified statement” to correspond with § 2.2(n); in § 2.88(c), add the title “Minimum filing requirements for a timely filed statement of use,” include the text in current § 2.88(e), and change text to “verified statement” to correspond with § 2.2(n); in § 2.88(d), add the title “Deficiency notification” and include the text from current § 2.88(g), except for the last sentence; in § 2.88(e), add the title “Notification of refusals and requirements” and include the text from current § 2.88(f), except delete the language regarding the USPTO providing notification of acceptance of a statement of use because the registration certificate provides such notice; in § 2.88(f), add the title “Statement of use may not be withdrawn” and include the text in the last sentence of current § 2.88(g); in § 2.88(g), add the title “Verification not filed within reasonable time,” include the text from current § 2.88(k), and change existing text to “verified statement” to correspond with § 2.2(n); in § 2.88(h), add the title “Amending the application,” include the text from the second to last sentence of current § 2.88(f), and specify that statements of use may include amendments in accordance with § 2.51, § 2.59, and § 2.71 through § 2.75, as the TEAS on-line statement of use form will now accept such amendments within the same form; in § 2.88(i), add the requirements for the verification in a concurrent use amendment under § 2.42; in § 2.88(j), add the title “Multiple-class application” and include the text from current § 2.88(l); and in § 2.88(k), add the title “Abandonment” and include the text from current § 2.88(h). Finally, the USPTO is further amending § 2.88(g) for consistency with revisions made in response to a comment to § 2.34(a)(1)(i) regarding bases for filing a trademark or service mark application and to include the relevant statement for collective marks and certification marks.

Comment: One commenter requested clarification that § 2.88(i) would apply only in the rare circumstances in which an applicant submitted a proper amendment for concurrent use in a section 1(b) application and satisfied the jurisdictional requirements for concurrent use under 15 U.S.C. 1052(d).

Response: Because an applicant must assert use in commerce prior to seeking concurrent use, the USPTO clarifies that a proper amendment for concurrent use submitted with an amendment to allege use under § 2.76 or statement of use under § 2.88 would be rare. The USPTO further clarifies that for such an amendment to be acceptable the amendment must satisfy both the requirements of § 2.73 for amending an application to concurrent use and the jurisdictional requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1052(d) for concurrent use. In addition, the USPTO is amending § 2.76(i) and § 2.88(i) slightly to clarify that an allegation of use must include a modified verified statement if the application is amended to concurrent use under § 2.73.

The USPTO is amending § 2.89, regarding submitting a request for an extension of time to file a statement of use (“extension request”), to include the relevant requirements for collective marks and certification marks, as well as to make other changes consistent with current USPTO practice. Section 2.89 is amended as follows: in § 2.89(a), add the title “First extension request after issuance of notice of allowance;” in § 2.89(a)(3), change text to “verified statement” to correspond with § 2.2(n), and incorporate the requirements for collective marks and certification marks; in § 2.89(b), add the title “Subsequent extension requests” and a cross-reference in § 2.89(b)(2) to § 2.89(a)(2), as the fee requirements are the same for first and subsequent extension requests; in § 2.89(c), add the title “Four subsequent extension requests permitted;” in § 2.89(d), add the title “Good cause,” enumerate in § 2.89(d)(1)-(3) the requirements for showing good cause for all marks, including collective marks and certification marks, and include the text from current § 2.89(d) in (d)(1); in § 2.89(e), add the title “Extension request filed in conjunction with or after a statement of use” and amend the current text for clarity; in § 2.89(f), add the title “Goods or services” and incorporate the requirements for collective marks and certification marks; in § 2.89(g), add the title “Notice of grant or denial;” and in § 2.89(h), add the title “Verification not filed within reasonable time,” incorporate the requirements for collective marks and certification marks, and change text to “verified statement” to correspond with § 2.2(n). Further, the USPTO is amending § 2.89(a)(3), (b)(3), and (h) for consistency with revisions made in response to a comment to § 2.34(a)(1)(i) regarding bases for filing a trademark or service mark application.

Petitions and Action by the Director

The USPTO is amending § 2.146(c), regarding petitions to the Director, to change existing text to “verified statements” to correspond with § 2.2(n). Additionally, § 2.146(d) is amended to specify that a petition regarding a cancelled or expired registration must be submitted to the USPTO within two months of the date when USPTO records are updated to show the registration as cancelled or expired, to ensure that all interested parties will be able to accurately determine the deadline for filing a petition under these circumstances.

Cancellation for Failure To File Affidavit or Declaration

The USPTO is amending § 2.161, regarding affidavits or declarations of use in commerce or excusable nonuse under section 8 of the Act, to include the relevant requirements for collective marks and certification marks, to change text to correspond with § 2.2, and to make other changes consistent with current USPTO practice. Section 2.161(g) is revised to cross-reference current § 2.56 regarding specimens and delete § 2.161(g)(1)-(3), as similar language appears in current § 2.56. Section 2.161(h) is revised to incorporate the language from current § 2.161(h)(1) into § 2.161(h) and to delete current § 2.161(h)(2)-(3), because the sunset provision in § 2.161(h)(2)-(3), in which § 2.161(h)(2) will no longer be applied after June 21, 2014 to affidavits or declarations filed under section 8 of the Act, has expired. Section 2.161(i) and (j) are added, as follows, to include requirements for collective marks and certification marks to harmonize the USPTO's post registration practice with current examination practice, and to be consistent with § 7.37(i)-(j), regarding affidavits or declarations of use in commerce or excusable nonuse under section 71 of the Act: in § 2.161(i), add the title “Additional requirements for a collective mark” and the additional requirements for such marks, see TMEP sections 1303.01, 1303.02(c)(i), 1304.08(f)(i)-(ii); in § 2.161(j), add the title “Additional requirements for a certification mark” and the additional requirements for such marks, see TMEP section 1306.06(f)(i)-(iii), (f)(v). Section 2.161(k) is added to cross-reference to § 7.37 regarding the requirements for a complete affidavit or declaration of use in commerce or excusable nonuse for a registration with an underlying application based on section 66(a) of the Act.

Affidavit or Declaration Under Section 15 of the Act

The USPTO is amending § 2.167, regarding an affidavit or declaration of incontestability under section 15 of the Act, to include the relevant requirements for collective marks and certification marks, to change text to “verified” to correspond with § 2.2(n), and to make other changes consistent with current USPTO practice. Specifically, § 2.167(f) is amended to delete the last sentence of the current rule because, under current USPTO practice, notification acknowledging receipt of the affidavit or declaration only issues if the requirements of § 2.167(a) through (g) have been satisfied, consistent with § 2.167(i). See TMEP section 1605. Also § 2.167(h), (i), (j), and (k) are added, as follows, to clarify current USPTO practice: in § 2.167(h), clarify that notification will be provided to an owner if an affidavit or declaration cannot be acknowledged when the affidavit or declaration fails to satisfy any requirements in paragraphs § 2.167(a) through (g), and that the affidavit or declaration will be abandoned if a response is not received in the time specified in the notification; in § 2.167(i), clarify that a notice of acknowledgement will only issue if an affidavit or declaration satisfies § 2.167(a) through (g); in § 2.167(j), clarify that an affidavit or declaration may be abandoned by petitioning the Director under § 2.146 either before or after a notice of acknowledgement issues; and in § 2.167(k), clarify that a new affidavit or declaration with a new fee may be filed if an affidavit or declaration is abandoned. See TMEP section 1605.

Correction, Disclaimer, Surrender, Etc.

The USPTO is amending § 2.173, regarding an amendment to a registration, to include the relevant requirements for collective marks and certification marks, to change text to correspond with § 2.2, and to make other changes consistent with current USPTO practice. Section 2.173 is amended as follows: in § 2.173(b)(2), cross-reference § 2.193(e)(6), regarding trademark signature requirements, and delete the language in this subsection that is similar to wording in current § 2.193(e)(6); in § 2.173(d), clarify that an amendment that would materially alter the mark will not be permitted in accordance with section 7(e) of the Act; in § 2.173(e), amend the title to “Amendment of identification of goods, services, or collective membership organization,” and the text to add a reference to a description of the nature of the collective membership organization; and in § 2.173(f), amend the title to “Amendment of certification statement for certification marks” and set forth the prohibition regarding amending a certification statement, as specified in § 2.45(a)(4)(i)(A) and (a)(4)(ii)(A), in accordance with section 7(e) of the Act and for consistency with § 2.71(e). Section 2.173(f) is redesignated as§ 2.173(g), and § 2.173(g) is redesignated as § 2.173(h). Section 2.173(i) is added with the heading “No amendment to add or delete a section 2(f) claim of acquired distinctiveness,” clarifying that the USPTO will not permit an amendment seeking the addition or elimination of a claim of acquired distinctiveness, just as an owner cannot amend a registration from the Supplemental to the Principal Register. See TMEP section 1609.09.

The USPTO is amending § 2.175(b)(2), regarding correcting an owner's mistake, to change text to “verified” to correspond with § 2.2(n).

Term and Renewal

The USPTO is amending § 2.183(d), regarding requirements for a renewal application, to specify that a renewal application may cover less than all the classes in a registration, in addition to covering less than all the goods or services in a registration.

General Information and Correspondence in Trademark Cases

The USPTO is amending § 2.193, regarding trademark correspondence and signature requirements, to correct a typographical error in § 2.193(c)(2), to change current text in § 2.193(e)(1) to correspond with § 2.2(n), and to revise the final sentence of § 2.193(f) to delete reference to § 10.23(c)(15) and instead refer to § 11.804, as part 10 of this chapter has been removed and reserved and the content in current § 11.804 corresponds with content previously set out in § 10.23.

Part 7: Rules of Practice in Filings Pursuant to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of MarksSubpart A—General Information

The USPTO is amending § 7.1, regarding definitions, to add § 7.1(f), which incorporates by reference the definitions in § 2.2(k) and (n), to apply to filings pursuant to the Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement concerning the international registration of marks.

Subpart F—Affidavit Under Section 71 of the Act for Extension of Protection to the United States

The USPTO is amending § 7.37, regarding affidavits or declarations of use in commerce or excusable nonuse under section 71 of the Act, to include the relevant requirements for collective marks and certification marks and to change text to correspond with § 2.2. Specifically, § 7.37(h) is revised to incorporate the language from current § 7.37(h)(1) into § 7.37(h) and to delete current § 7.37(h)(2)-(3), because the sunset provision in § 7.37(h)(2)-(3), in which § 7.37(h)(2) will no longer be applied after June 21, 2014 to affidavits or declarations filed under section 71 of the Act, has expired. Section 7.37(i) and (j) are added, as follows, to include requirements for collective marks and certification marks so as to harmonize the USPTO's post registration practice with current examination practice, and to be consistent with § 2.161(i)-(j), regarding affidavits or declarations of use in commerce or excusable nonuse under section 8 of the Act: in § 7.37(i), add the title “Additional requirements for a collective mark” and the additional requirements for such marks, see TMEP sections 1303.01, 1303.02(c)(i), 1304.08(f)(i)-(ii), 1904.02(d); in § 7.37(j), add the title “Additional requirements for a certification mark” and additional requirements for such marks, see TMEP sections 1306.06(f)(i)-(iii), (f)(v), 1904.02(d).

Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for the changes in this rulemaking are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c), or any other law. See Perez, 135 S. Ct. at 1206 (notice-and-comment procedures are required neither when an agency “issue[s] an initial interpretive rule” nor “when it amends or repeals that interpretive rule”); Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), does not require notice and comment rulemaking for “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice,” quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)). The USPTO, however, chose to seek public comment before implementing the rule as the USPTO seeks the benefit of the public's views regarding collective and certification marks.

Regulatory Flexibility Act: As prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, neither a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, nor a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), is required. See 5 U.S.C. 603.

In addition, for the reasons set forth herein, the Deputy General Counsel for General Law of the USPTO has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that rule changes in this document will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

To the extent the rule changes in this document primarily codify current USPTO practice set forth in the TMEP and precedential case law regarding collective marks and certification marks, those rule changes impose no new burdens on applicants and registration owners/holders. Some rule changes harmonize registration maintenance requirements with current application requirements. The USPTO is also changing current practice regarding maintenance requirements regarding certification marks to require filers of the first affidavit of use after registration in registrations based on sections 44 and 66(a) of the Act to submit certification standards, and to require that all filers of such affidavits submit updated standards if the standards have changed or a statement indicating they have not. The USPTO does not collect or maintain statistics in trademark cases on small versus large entity applicants, and this information would be required in order to precisely calculate the number of small entities that would be affected. However, these rule changes will have no impact on the vast majority of trademark owners/holders, and only a slight effect on the very small subset of certification mark registrations, where standards previously have not been provided, or change post registration. Certification marks account for approximately 0.2% of the total number of registered marks in the USPTO database (approximately 4,000 registrations out of a total of approximately 2,000,000 registrations). For fiscal year 2014, affidavits of use for all filers have totaled approximately 248,000 of which approximately 0.2%, or 496 affidavits, were submitted for certification mark registrations. Of those 496 affidavits, only a small subset will be required to include certification standards or revised standards. Even in the event that standards must be submitted, the burden is quite minimal, as it merely involves attaching an already existing document to a filing that must otherwise be made to maintain the registration. For these reasons, the rule changes will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).

Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review): The USPTO has complied with Executive Order 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011). Specifically, the USPTO has, to the extent feasible and applicable: (1) Made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs of the rule changes; (2) tailored the rules to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3) selected a regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance objectives; (5) identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) provided the public with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the regulatory process, including soliciting the views of those likely affected prior to issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, and provided on-line access to the rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization across government agencies and identified goals designed to promote innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and (9) ensured the objectivity of scientific and technological information and processes, to the extent applicable.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rulemaking does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).

Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to issuing this final rule, the USPTO has submitted the required report containing the final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office. The changes in this document are not expected to result in an annual effect on the economy of 100 million dollars or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore, this document is not expected to result in a “major rule” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in this rulemaking do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, or a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the expenditure by the private sector of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

Paperwork Reduction Act: This rulemaking involves information collection requirements which are subject to review by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The USPTO has determined that there would be no new information collection requirements or impacts to existing information collection requirements associated with this rulemaking. The collections of information involved in this rulemaking have been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under control numbers 0651-0009, 0651-0050, 0651-0051, 0651-0054, 0651-0055, 0651-0056, and 0651-0061.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

(f) The acronym TEAS means the Trademark Electronic Application System, available at http://www.uspto.gov.

(h) The term international application as used in this part means, in addition to the definition in section 60 of the Act, an application seeking an extension of protection of an international registration in an initial designation filed under the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks.

(i) The term subsequent designation as used in this part means a request for extension of protection of an international registration made after the International Bureau registers the mark on the International Register.

(j) The term holder as used in this part means, in addition to the definition of a “holder of an international registration” in section 60 of the Act, the natural or juristic person in whose name an international registration seeking an extension of protection to the United States is recorded on the International Register.

(k) The term use in commerce or use of the mark in commerce as used in this part means, in addition to the definition of “use in commerce” in section 45 of the Act:

(1) For a trademark or service mark, use of the mark in commerce by an applicant, owner, or holder on or in connection with the goods or services specified in a U.S. application, amendment to allege use, statement of use, or affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse;

(2) For a collective trademark or collective service mark, use of the mark in commerce by members on or in connection with the goods or services specified in a U.S. application, amendment to allege use, statement of use, or affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse;

(3) For a collective membership mark, use of the mark in commerce by members to indicate membership in the collective organization as specified in a U.S. application, amendment to allege use, statement of use, or affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse; and

(4) For a certification mark, use of the mark in commerce by authorized users on or in connection with the goods or services specified in a U.S. application, amendment to allege use, statement of use, or affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse.

(l) The term bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as used in this part means, for a trademark or service mark, that an applicant or holder has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in a U.S. application or international application/subsequent designation.

(m) The term bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce as used in this part means:

(1) For a collective trademark or collective service mark, that an applicant or holder has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce by members on or in connection with the goods or services specified in a U.S. application or international application/subsequent designation;

(2) For a collective membership mark, that an applicant or holder has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce by members to indicate membership in the collective organization as specified in a U.S. application or international application/subsequent designation; and

(3) For a certification mark, that an applicant or holder has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce by authorized users on or in connection with the goods or services specified in a U.S. application or international application/subsequent designation.

(n) The term verified statement, and the terms verify, verified, or verification as used in this part refers to a statement that is sworn to, made under oath or in an affidavit, or supported by a declaration under § 2.20 or 28 U.S.C. 1746, and signed in accordance with the requirements of § 2.193.

Instead of an oath, affidavit, or sworn statement, the language of 28 U.S.C. 1746, or the following declaration language, may be used:

The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or submission or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

(8) Correctly classified goods and/or services, with an identification of goods and/or services from the Office's Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual, available through the TEAS Plus form. In an application based on section 44 of the Act, the scope of the goods and/or services covered by the section 44 basis may not exceed the scope of the goods and/or services in the foreign application or registration;

5. Amend § 2.32 by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a)(3)(iii), (a)(6), (c), and (e) and adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as follows:§ 2.32 Requirements for a complete trademark or service mark application.

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

(iii) If the applicant is a domestic partnership, the names and citizenship of the general partners; or

(6) A list of the particular goods or services on or in connection with which the applicant uses or intends to use the mark. In a U.S. application filed under section 44 of the Act, the scope of the goods or services covered by the section 44 basis may not exceed the scope of the goods or services in the foreign application or registration;

(c) The application must include a drawing that meets the requirements of § 2.51 and § 2.52.

(e) For the requirements of a multiple-class application, see § 2.86.

(f) For the requirements of all collective mark applications, see § 2.44.

(g) For the requirements of a certification mark application, see § 2.45.

6. Revise § 2.33 to read as follows:§ 2.33 Verified statement for a trademark or service mark.

(a) The application must include a verified statement.

(b)(1) In an application under section 1(a) of the Act, the verified statement must allege:

That the applicant believes the applicant is the owner of the mark; that the mark is in use in commerce; that to the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other person has the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when applied to the goods or services of such other person, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive; that the specimen shows the mark as used on or in connection with the goods or services; and that the facts set forth in the application are true.

(2) In an application under section 1(b) or 44 of the Act, the verified statement must allege:

That the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce; that the applicant believes the applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the application; that to the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other person has the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when applied to the goods or services of such other person, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive; and that the facts set forth in the application are true.

(c) If the verified statement in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section is not filed within a reasonable time after it is signed, the Office may require the applicant to submit a substitute verified statement attesting that the mark was in use in commerce as of the application filing date, or the applicant had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing date.

(d) [Reserved]

(e) In an application under section 66(a) of the Act, the verified statement, which is part of the international registration on file with the International Bureau, must allege that:

(1) The applicant/holder has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress can regulate on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the international application/subsequent designation;

(2) The signatory is properly authorized to execute the declaration on behalf of the applicant/holder;

(3) The signatory believes the applicant/holder to be entitled to use the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress can regulate on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the international application/subsequent designation; and

(4) To the best of his/her knowledge and belief, no other person, firm, corporation, association, or other legal entity has the right to use the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress can regulate either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods or services of such other person, firm, corporation, association, or other legal entity, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.

(f) In an application for concurrent use under § 2.42, the verified statement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be modified to indicate that no other person except as specified in the application has the right to use the mark in commerce.

(a) An application for a trademark or service mark must include one or more of the following five filing bases:

(1) Use in commerce under section 1(a) of the Act. The requirements for an application under section 1(a) of the Act are:

(i) The applicant's verified statement that the mark is in use in commerce. If the verified statement is not filed with the initial application, the verified statement must also allege that the mark was in use in commerce as of the application filing date;

(iii) The date of the applicant's first use of the mark in commerce;

(iv) One specimen showing how the applicant uses the mark in commerce; and

(v) If the application specifies more than one item of goods or services in a class, the dates of use in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section are required for only one item of goods or services specified in that class.

(2) Intent-to-use under section 1(b) of the Act. In an application under section 1(b) of the Act, the applicant must verify that the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. If the verified statement is not filed with the initial application, the verified statement must also allege that the applicant had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing date.

(3) Registration of a mark in a foreign applicant's country of origin under section 44(e) of the Act. The requirements for an application under section 44(e) of the Act are:

(i) The applicant's verified statement that the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. If the verified statement is not filed with the initial application, the Office will require submission of the verified statement, which must also allege that the applicant had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing date.

(iii) If the record indicates that the foreign registration will expire before the U.S. registration will issue, the applicant must submit a true copy, a photocopy, a certification, or a certified copy of a proof of renewal from the applicant's country of origin to establish that the foreign registration has been renewed and will be in full force and effect at the time the U.S. registration will issue. If the proof of renewal is not in the English language, the applicant must submit a translation.

(4) Claim of priority, based upon an earlier-filed foreign application, under section 44(d) of the Act. The requirements for an application under section 44(d) of the Act are:

(i) * * *

(B) State that the application is based upon a subsequent regularly filed application in the same foreign country, and that any prior-filed application has been withdrawn, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of, without having been laid open to public inspection and without having any rights outstanding, and has not served as a basis for claiming a right of priority.

(ii) The applicant's verified statement that the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. If the verified statement is not filed with the initial application, the Office will require submission of the verified statement, which must also allege that the applicant had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing date.

(iii) Before the application can be approved for publication, or for registration on the Supplemental Register, the applicant must establish a basis under section 1 or 44 of the Act.

(5) Extension of protection of an international registration under section 66(a) of the Act. In an application under section 66(a) of the Act, the international application/subsequent designation must contain a signed declaration that meets the requirements of § 2.33(a), (e).

(b) More than one basis. In an application under section 1 or 44 of the Act, an applicant may claim more than one basis, provided the applicant satisfies all requirements for the bases claimed. In such case, the applicant must specify each basis and the goods or services to which that basis applies. An applicant must specify the goods or services covered by more than one basis. Section 1(a) and 1(b) of the Act may not both be claimed for identical goods or services in the same application. A basis under section 66(a) of the Act may not be combined with another basis.

(1) Before publication for opposition, an applicant may add or substitute a basis, if the applicant meets all requirements for the new basis, as stated in § 2.34, § 2.44, or § 2.45. The applicant may delete a basis at any time.

(6) When the applicant adds or substitutes a basis, the applicant must list each basis and specify the goods, services, or collective membership organization to which that basis applies.

(7) When the applicant deletes a basis, the applicant must also delete any goods, services, or collective membership organization covered solely by the deleted basis.

(8) Once an applicant claims a section 1(b) basis as to any or all of the goods or services, or a collective membership organization, the applicant may not amend the application to seek registration under section 1(a) of the Act for identical goods or services or the same collective membership organization, unless the applicant files an allegation of use under section 1(c) or section 1(d) of the Act.

(a) For a trademark or service mark—(1) Ownership of prior registration(s). In appropriate cases, ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register or under the Trademark Act of 1905 of the same mark may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness if the goods or services are sufficiently similar to the goods or services in the application; however, further evidence may be required.

(2) Five years substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce. In appropriate cases, if a trademark or service mark is said to have become distinctive of the applicant's goods or services by reason of the applicant's substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made, a showing by way of verified statements in the application may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness; however, further evidence may be required.

(3) Other evidence. In appropriate cases, where the applicant claims that a mark has become distinctive in commerce of the applicant's goods or services, the applicant may, in support of registrability, submit with the application, or in response to a request for evidence or to a refusal to register, verified statements, depositions, or other appropriate evidence showing duration, extent, and nature of the use in commerce and advertising expenditures in connection therewith (identifying types of media and attaching typical advertisements), and verified statements, letters or statements from the trade or public, or both, or other appropriate evidence of distinctiveness.

(b) For a collective trademark or collective service mark—(1) Ownership of prior registration(s). See the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

(2) Five years substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce. In appropriate cases, if a collective trademark or collective service mark is said to have become distinctive of the members' goods or services by reason of the members' substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made, a showing by way of verified statements in the application may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness; however, further evidence may be required.

(3) Other evidence. In appropriate cases, where the applicant claims that a mark has become distinctive in commerce of the members' goods or services, the applicant may, in support of registrability, submit with the application, or in response to a request for evidence or to a refusal to register, verified statements, depositions, or other appropriate evidence showing duration, extent, and nature of the use in commerce, and advertising expenditures in connection therewith (identifying types of media and attaching typical advertisements), and verified statements, letters or statements from the trade or public, or both, or other appropriate evidence of distinctiveness.

(c) For a collective membership mark—(1) Ownership of prior registration(s). In appropriate cases, ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register or under the Act of 1905 of the same mark may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness if the goods, services, or nature of the collective membership organization are sufficiently similar to the collective membership organization in the application; however, further evidence may be required.

(2) Five years substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce. In appropriate cases, if a collective membership mark is said to have become distinctive of indicating membership in the applicant's collective membership organization by reason of the members' substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made, a showing by way of verified statements in the application may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness; however, further evidence may be required.

(3) Other evidence. In appropriate cases, where the applicant claims that a mark has become distinctive in commerce of indicating membership in the applicant's collective membership organization, the applicant may, in support of registrability, submit with the application, or in response to a request for evidence or to a refusal to register, verified statements, depositions, or other appropriate evidence showing duration, extent, and nature of the members' use in commerce, and advertising expenditures in connection therewith (identifying types of media and attaching typical advertisements), and verified statements, letters or statements from the trade or public, or both, or other appropriate evidence of distinctiveness.

(d) For a certification mark—(1) Ownership of prior certification mark registration(s). In appropriate cases, ownership of one or more active prior certification mark registrations on the Principal Register or under the Act of 1905 of the same mark may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness if the authorized users' goods or services are sufficiently similar to the goods or services certified in the application, subject to the limitations of the statement set forth in § 2.45(a)(4)(i)(C); however, further evidence may be required.

(2) Five years substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce. In appropriate cases, if a certification mark is said to have become distinctive of the certified goods or services by reason of the authorized users' substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made, a showing by way of verified statements in the application may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness; however, further evidence may be required.

(3) Other evidence. In appropriate cases, where the applicant claims that a mark has become distinctive of the certified goods or services program, the applicant may, in support of registrability, submit with the application, or in response to a request for evidence or to a refusal to register, verified statements, depositions, or other appropriate evidence showing duration, extent, and nature of the authorized users' use in commerce and advertising expenditures in connection therewith (identifying types of media and attaching typical advertisements), and verified statements, letters or statements from the trade or public, or both, or other appropriate evidence of distinctiveness.

(e) Certification marks with geographical matter. Paragraph (d) of this section does not apply to geographical matter in a certification mark certifying regional origin because section 2(e)(2) of the Act does not apply to certification marks that are indications of regional origin.

10. Revise § 2.42 to read as follows:§ 2.42 Concurrent use.

(a) Prior to seeking concurrent use, an application for registration on the Principal Register under the Act must assert use in commerce and include all the application elements required by the preceding sections, in addition to § 2.44 or § 2.45, if applicable.

(b) The applicant must also include a verified statement that indicates the following, to the extent of the applicant's knowledge:

(1) For a trademark or service mark, the geographic area in which the applicant is using the mark in commerce; for a collective mark or certification mark, the geographic area in which the applicant's members or authorized users are using the mark in commerce;

(2) For a trademark or service mark, the applicant's goods or services; for a collective trademark, collective service mark, or certification mark, the applicant's members' or authorized users' goods or services; for a collective membership mark, the nature of the applicant's collective membership organization;

(3) The mode of use for which the applicant seeks registration;

(4) The concurrent users' names and addresses;

(5) The registrations issued to or applications filed by such concurrent users, if any;

(6) For a trademark or service mark, the geographic areas in which the concurrent user is using the mark in commerce; for a collective mark or certification mark, the geographic areas in which the concurrent user's members or authorized users are using the mark in commerce;

(7) For a trademark or service mark, the concurrent user's goods or services; for a collective trademark, collective service mark, or certification mark, the concurrent user's members' or authorized users' goods or services; for a collective membership mark, the nature of the concurrent user's collective membership organization;

(8) The mode of use by the concurrent users or the concurrent users' members or authorized users; and

(9) The time periods of such use by the concurrent users or the concurrent users' members or authorized users.

(c) For the requirements to amend an application to concurrent use, see § 2.73.

(2)(i) For a collective trademark or collective service mark, a list of the particular goods or services on or in connection with which the applicant's members use or intend to use the mark; or

(ii) For a collective membership mark, a description of the nature of the membership organization such as by type, purpose, or area of activity of the members; and

(iii) In a U.S. application filed under section 44 of the Act, the scope of the goods or services or the nature of the membership organization covered by the section 44 basis may not exceed the scope of the goods or services or nature of the membership organization in the foreign application or registration.

(3)(i) For a collective trademark or collective service mark application, the international class of goods or services, if known. See § 6.1 of this chapter for a list of the international classes of goods and services; or

(ii) For a collective membership mark application filed under sections 1 or 44 of the Act, classification in U.S. Class 200; and for a collective membership mark application filed under section 66(a) of the Act, the international class(es) assigned by the International Bureau in the corresponding international registration.

(4) One or more of the following five filing bases:

(i) Use in commerce under section 1(a) of the Act. The requirements for an application under section 1(a) of the Act are:

(A) A statement specifying the nature of the applicant's control over the use of the mark by the members;

(B) For a collective trademark or collective service mark, the date of the applicant's member's first use of the mark anywhere on or in connection with the goods or services and the date of the applicant's member's first use of the mark in commerce; or for a collective membership mark, the date of the applicant's member's first use anywhere to indicate membership in the collective organization and the date of the applicant's member's first use in commerce. If the application specifies more than one item of goods or services in a class, the dates of use are required for only one item of goods or services specified in that class;

(C) One specimen showing how a member uses the mark in commerce; and

(D) A verified statement alleging:

That the applicant believes the applicant is the owner of the mark; that the mark is in use in commerce; that the applicant is exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce; that to the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other persons except members have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods, services, or collective membership organization of such other persons to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive; that the specimen shows the mark as used in commerce by the applicant's members; and that the facts set forth in the application are true.

(ii) Intent-to-use under section 1(b) of the Act. The requirement for an application based on section 1(b) of the Act is a verified statement alleging:

That the applicant has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce; that to the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other persons, except members, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods, services, or collective membership organization of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive; and that the facts set forth in the application are true.

(iii) Registration of a mark in a foreign applicant's country of origin under section 44(e) of the Act. The requirements for an application under section 44(e) of the Act are:

(A) The requirements of § 2.34(a)(3)(ii) and (iii); and

(B) A verified statement in accordance with paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section.

(iv) Claim of priority, based upon an earlier-filed foreign application, under section 44(d) of the Act. The requirements for an application under section 44(d) of the Act are:

(A) The requirements of § 2.34(a)(4)(i) and (iii); and

(B) A verified statement in accordance with paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section.

(v) Extension of protection of an international registration under section 66(a) of the Act. The requirement for an application under section 66(a) of the Act is a verified statement alleging that the applicant/holder has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress can regulate on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the international application/subsequent designation; that the signatory is properly authorized to execute the declaration on behalf of the applicant/holder; and that to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, no other person, firm, corporation, association, or other legal entity, except members, has the right to use the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress can regulate either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods, services, or collective membership organization of such other person, firm, corporation, association, or other legal entity, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.

(b) Verification not filed within reasonable time or omitted. (1) If the verified statement in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(D), (a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iii)(B), or (a)(4)(iv)(B) of this section is not filed within a reasonable time after it is signed, the Office may require the applicant to submit a substitute verified statement attesting that, as of the application filing date, the mark was in use in commerce and the applicant was exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce; or, as of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce; or

(2) If the verified statement in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(D), (a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iii)(B), (a)(4)(iv)(B), or (a)(4)(v) of this section is not filed with the initial application, the verified statement must also allege that, as of the application filing date, the mark was in use in commerce and the applicant was exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce; or, as of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce.

(c) More than one basis. In an application under section 1 or 44 of the Act, an applicant may claim more than one basis, provided the applicant satisfies all requirements for the bases claimed. In such case, the applicant must specify each basis, followed by the goods, services, or collective membership organization to which that basis applies. An applicant must specify the goods, services, or collective membership organization covered by more than one basis. Section 1(a) and 1(b) of the Act may not both be claimed for identical goods, or services, or the same collective membership organization in one application. A basis under section 66(a) of the Act may not be combined with another basis.

(d) In an application for concurrent use under § 2.42, the verified statement in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(D) of this section must be modified to indicate that no other persons except members and the concurrent users as specified in the application have the right to use the mark in commerce.

(e) Multiple-class applications. For the requirements of a multiple-class application, see § 2.86.

(2) A list of the particular goods or services on or in connection with which the applicant's authorized users use or intend to use the mark. In an application filed under section 44 of the Act, the scope of the goods or services covered by the section 44 basis may not exceed the scope of the goods or services in the foreign application or registration;

(3) For applications filed under section 1 or 44 of the Act, classification in U.S. Class A for an application certifying goods and U.S. Class B for an application certifying services. For applications filed under section 66(a) of the Act, the international class(es) of goods or services assigned by the International Bureau in the corresponding international registration;

(4) One or more of the following five filing bases:

(i) Use in commerce under section 1(a) of the Act. The requirements for an application under section 1(a) of the Act are:

(A) A statement specifying what the applicant is certifying about the goods or services in the application;

(B) A copy of the certification standards governing use of the certification mark on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the application;

(C) A statement that the applicant is not engaged in the production or marketing of the goods or services to which the mark is applied, except to advertise or promote recognition of the certification program or of the goods or services that meet the certification standards of the applicant;

(D) The date of the applicant's authorized user's first use of the mark anywhere on or in connection with the goods or services and the date of the applicant's authorized user's first use of the mark in commerce. If the application specifies more than one item of goods or services in a class, the dates of use are required for only one item of goods or services specified in that class;

(E) One specimen showing how an authorized user uses the mark in commerce; and

(F) A verified statement alleging:

That the applicant believes the applicant is the owner of the mark; that the mark is in use in commerce; that the applicant is exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce; that to the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other persons except authorized users have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods or services of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive; that the specimen shows the mark as used in commerce by the applicant's authorized users; and that the facts set forth in the application are true.

(ii) Intent-to-use under section 1(b) of the Act. The requirements for an application based on section 1(b) of the Act are:

(A) A statement specifying what the applicant will be certifying about the goods or services in the application;

(B) A statement that the applicant will not engage in the production or marketing of the goods or services to which the mark is applied, except to advertise or promote recognition of the certification program or of the goods or services that meet the certification standards of the applicant; and

(C) A verified statement alleging:

That the applicant has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce; that to the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other persons, except authorized users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods or services of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive; and that the facts set forth in the application are true.

(iii) Registration of a mark in a foreign applicant's country of origin under section 44(e) of the Act. The requirements for an application under section 44(e) of the Act are:

(A) The requirements of § 2.34(a)(3)(ii) and (iii);

(B) The requirements in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section; and

(C) A verified statement in accordance with paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) of this section.

(iv) Claim of priority, based upon an earlier-filed foreign application, under section 44(d) of the Act. The requirements for an application under section 44(d) of the Act are:

(A) The requirements of § 2.34(a)(4)(i) and (iii);

(B) The requirements in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section; and

(C) A verified statement in accordance with paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) of this section.

(v) Extension of protection of an international registration under section 66(a) of the Act. The requirements for an application under section 66(a) of the Act are:

(A) The requirements of paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section; and

(B) A verified statement alleging that the applicant/holder has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress can regulate on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the international application/subsequent designation; that the signatory is properly authorized to execute the declaration on behalf of the applicant/holder; and that to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, no other person, firm, corporation, association, or other legal entity, except authorized users, has the right to use the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress can regulate either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods or services of such other person, firm, corporation, association, or other legal entity, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.

(b) Verification not filed within reasonable time or omitted. (1) If the verified statement in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(F), (a)(4)(ii)(C), (a)(4)(iii)(C), or (a)(4)(iv)(C) of this section is not filed within a reasonable time after it is signed, the Office may require the applicant to submit a substitute verified statement attesting that, as of the application filing date, the mark was in use in commerce and the applicant was exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce; or, as of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce; or

(2) If the verified statement in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(F), (a)(4)(ii)(C), (a)(4)(iii)(C), (a)(4)(iv)(C), or (a)(4)(v)(B) of this section is not filed with the initial application, the verified statement must also allege that, as of the application filing date, the mark was in use in commerce and the applicant was exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce; or, as of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce.

(c) More than one basis. In an application under section 1 or 44 of the Act, an applicant may claim more than one basis, provided the applicant satisfies all requirements for the bases claimed. In such case, the applicant must specify each basis, followed by the goods or services to which that basis applies. An applicant must specify the goods or services covered by more than one basis. Section 1(a) and 1(b) of the Act may not both be claimed for identical goods or services in the same application. A basis under section 66(a) of the Act may not be combined with another basis.

(d) Concurrent use. In an application for concurrent use under § 2.42, the verified statement in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(F) of this section must be modified to indicate that no other persons except authorized users and concurrent users as specified in the application have the right to use the mark in commerce.

(e) Multiple-class applications. For the requirements of a multiple-class application, see § 2.86.

(f) Restriction on certification mark application. A single application may not include a certification mark and another type of mark. The same mark for the same goods or services is not registrable as both a certification mark and another type of mark. See sections 4 and 14(5)(B) of the Act.

(2) A service mark specimen must show the mark as used in the sale or advertising of the services.

(5) A certification mark specimen must show how a person other than the owner uses the mark to reflect certification of regional or other origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy, or other characteristics of that person's goods or services; or that members of a union or other organization performed the work or labor on the goods or services.

(c) A photocopy or other reproduction of a specimen of the mark as used on or in connection with the goods, or in the sale or advertising of the services, is acceptable. However, a photocopy of the drawing required by § 2.51 is not a proper specimen.

(d) * * *

(3) In the absence of non-bulky alternatives, a specimen of use in another appropriate medium may be designated as acceptable by the Office.

(a) In an application under section 1(a) of the Act, the applicant may submit substitute specimens of the mark as used on or in connection with the goods or in the sale or advertising of the services, or as used to indicate membership in the collective organization. The applicant must submit a verified statement that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application. The verified statement is not required if the specimen is a duplicate or facsimile of a specimen already of record in the application.

(b) In an application under section 1(b) of the Act, after filing either an amendment to allege use under § 2.76 or a statement of use under § 2.88, the applicant may submit substitute specimens of the mark as used on or in connection with the goods or in the sale or advertising of the services, or as used to indicate membership in the collective organization. If the applicant submits substitute specimen(s), the applicant must:

(1) For an amendment to allege use under § 2.76, submit a verified statement that the substitute specimen(s) was in use in commerce prior to filing the amendment to allege use.

(2) For a statement of use under § 2.88, submit a verified statement that the substitute specimen(s) was in use in commerce either prior to filing the statement of use or prior to the expiration of the deadline for filing the statement of use.

(a) The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit, but not to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services or the description of the nature of the collective membership organization.

(b)(1) If the verified statement in an application under § 2.33 is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant may submit a substitute verification.

(2) If the verified statement in a statement of use under § 2.88, or a request for extension of time to file a statement of use under § 2.89, is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant must submit a substitute verification before the expiration of the statutory deadline for filing the statement of use.

(c) The applicant may amend the dates of use, provided that the amendment is verified, except that the following amendments are not permitted:

(d) The applicant may amend the application to correct the name of the applicant, if there is a mistake in the manner in which the name of the applicant is set out in the application. The amendment must be verified. However, the application cannot be amended to set forth a different entity as the applicant. An application filed in the name of an entity that did not own the mark as of the filing date of the application is void.

(e) An amendment that would materially alter the certification statement specified in § 2.45(a)(4)(i)(A) or (a)(4)(ii)(A) will not be permitted.

16. Amend § 2.74 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:§ 2.74 Form and signature of amendment.

(b) Signature. A request for amendment of an application must be signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner qualified to practice under § 11.14 of this chapter, in accordance with the requirements of § 2.193(e)(2). If the amendment requires verification, see § 2.2(n).

17. Revise § 2.76 to read as follows:§ 2.76 Amendment to allege use.

(a) When to file an amendment to allege use. (1) An application under section 1(b) of the Act may be amended to allege use of the mark in commerce under section 1(c) of the Act at any time between the filing of the application and the date the examiner approves the mark for publication. Thereafter, an allegation of use may be submitted only as a statement of use under § 2.88 after the issuance of a notice of allowance under section 13(b)(2) of the Act. An amendment to allege use filed outside the time period specified in this paragraph will not be reviewed.

(2)(i) For a trademark, service mark, collective trademark, collective service mark, and certification mark, an amendment to allege use may be filed only when the mark has been in use in commerce on or in connection with all the goods or services specified in the application for which the applicant will seek registration. For a collective membership mark, an amendment to allege use may be filed only when the mark has been in use in commerce to indicate membership in the collective organization specified in the application for which the applicant will seek registration.

(ii) An amendment to allege use may be accompanied by a request in accordance with § 2.87 to divide out from the application the goods, services, or classes not yet in use in commerce.

(b) A complete amendment to allege use. A complete amendment to allege use must include the following:

(1) A verified statement alleging:

(i) The applicant believes the applicant is the owner of the mark;

(ii) The mark is in use in commerce;

(iii) The date of first use of the mark anywhere on or in connection with the goods or services, and/or to indicate membership in the collective organization specified in the application, and the date of first use of the mark in commerce. If the amendment to allege use specifies more than one item of goods or services in a class, the dates of use are required for only one item of goods or services specified in that class;

(iv) The goods, services, and/or nature of the collective membership organization specified in the application; and

(v) For a collective mark and certification mark, the applicant is exercising legitimate control over the use in commerce of the mark.

(2) One specimen showing how the applicant, member, or authorized user uses the mark in commerce. See § 2.56 for the requirements for specimens;

(3) The fee per class required by § 2.6;

(4) For a collective mark, the requirements of § 2.44(a)(4)(i)(A);

(5) For a certification mark, the requirements of § 2.45(a)(4)(i)(A)-(C); and

(6) The title “Amendment to Allege Use” should appear at the top of the first page of the document, if not filed through TEAS.

(c) Minimum filing requirements for a timely filed amendment to allege use. The Office will review a timely filed amendment to allege use to determine whether it meets the following minimum requirements:

(1) The fee required by § 2.6 for at least one class;

(2) One specimen of the mark as used in commerce; and

(3) The verified statement in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.

(d) Deficiency notification. If the amendment to allege use is filed within the permitted time period but does not meet the minimum requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section, the Office will notify the applicant of the deficiency. The deficiency may be corrected provided the mark has not been approved for publication. If an acceptable amendment to correct the deficiency is not filed prior to approval of the mark for publication, the amendment will not be examined, and the applicant must instead file a statement of use after the notice of allowance issues.

(e) Notification of refusals and requirements. A timely filed amendment to allege use that meets the minimum requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section will be examined in accordance with §§ 2.61 through 2.69. If, as a result of the examination of the amendment to allege use, the applicant is found not entitled to registration for any reason not previously stated, the applicant will be notified and advised of the reasons and of any formal requirements or refusals. The notification shall restate or incorporate by reference all unresolved refusals or requirements previously stated. The amendment to allege use may be amended in accordance with §§ 2.59 and 2.71 through 2.75.

(f) Withdrawal. An amendment to allege use may be withdrawn for any reason prior to approval of a mark for publication.

(g) Verification not filed within reasonable time. If the verified statements in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and, if applicable, (b)(1)(v) of this section are not filed within a reasonable time after they are signed, the Office may require the applicant to submit substitute verified statements attesting that the mark is in use in commerce, and, if applicable, the applicant is exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce.

(h) An amendment to allege use is not a response but may include amendments. The filing of an amendment to allege use does not constitute a response to any outstanding action by the examiner. See § 2.62. The amendment to allege use may include amendments in accordance with §§ 2.59 and 2.71 through 2.75.

(i) If the application is amended to concurrent use under § 2.73, the amendment to allege use must include a verified statement modified in accordance with § 2.33(f), § 2.44(d), or § 2.45(d).

(j) Multiple-class application. For the requirements of a multiple-class application, see § 2.86.

18. Amend § 2.77, by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) to read as follows:§ 2.77 Amendments between notice of allowance and statement of use.

(a) The only amendments that may be entered in an application between the issuance of the notice of allowance and the submission of a statement of use are:

(1) The deletion of specified goods or services, or the entire description of the nature of the collective membership organization, from the identification;

(a) In a single application for a trademark, service mark, and/or collective mark, an applicant may apply to register the same mark for goods, services, and/or a collective membership organization in multiple classes. In a multiple-class application, the applicant must satisfy the following, in addition to the application requirements of § 2.32 for a trademark or service mark, and § 2.44 for collective marks:

(1) For an application filed under section 1 or 44 of the Act, identify the goods or services in each international class and/or the nature of the collective membership organization in U.S. Class 200; for applications filed under section 66(a) of the Act, identify the goods, services, and/or the nature of the collective membership organization in each international class assigned by the International Bureau in the corresponding international registration;

(2) Submit the application filing fee required by § 2.6 for each class; and

(3) Include either dates of use and one specimen for each class based on section 1(a) of the Act; or a statement that the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, for a trademark or service mark, or a statement that the applicant has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce, for collective marks, for each class based on section 1(b), 44, or 66(a) of the Act. When requested by the Office, additional specimens must be provided.

(b) In a single application for a certification mark, an applicant may apply to register the same certification mark for goods and services. In such case, the applicant must satisfy the following, in addition to the application requirements of § 2.45:

(1) For an application filed under section 1 or 44 of the Act, identify the goods in U.S. Class A and the services in U.S. Class B; for applications filed under section 66(a) of the Act, identify the goods and services in each international class assigned by the International Bureau in the corresponding international registration;

(2) Submit the application filing fee required by § 2.6 for both classes; and

(3) Include either dates of use and one specimen for each class based on section 1(a) of the Act; or a statement that the applicant has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce for each class based on section 1(b), 44, or 66(a) of the Act. When requested by the Office, additional specimens must be provided.

(c) In a single application, both section 1(a) and 1(b) of the Act may not be claimed for identical goods or services.

(d) In a single application based on section 1 or 44 of the Act, goods or services in U.S. Classes A and/or B may not be combined with either goods or services in any international class or with a collective membership organization in U.S. Class 200; and in a single application based on section 66(a) of the Act, a certification mark application may not be combined with goods, services, or a collective membership organization in any international class. See § 2.45(f).

(e) An amendment to allege use under § 2.76 or a statement of use under § 2.88 for multiple classes must include, for each class, the required fee, dates of use, and one specimen. When requested by the Office, additional specimens must be provided. The applicant may not file an amendment to allege use or a statement of use until the applicant has used the mark on or in connection with all the goods, services, or classes, unless the applicant also files a request to divide under § 2.87.

(f) The Office will issue a single certificate of registration for the mark, unless the applicant files a request to divide under § 2.87.

20. Revise § 2.88 to read as follows:§ 2.88 Statement of use after notice of allowance.

(a) When to file a statement of use. (1) In an application under section 1(b) of the Act, a statement of use, required under section 1(d) of the Act, must be filed within six months after issuance of a notice of allowance under section 13(b)(2) of the Act, or within an extension of time granted under § 2.89. A statement of use filed prior to issuance of a notice of allowance is premature and will not be reviewed.

(2)(i) For a trademark, service mark, collective trademark, collective service mark, and certification mark, a statement of use may be filed only when the mark has been in use in commerce on or in connection with all the goods or services specified in the notice of allowance for which the applicant will seek registration in that application. For a collective membership mark, a statement of use may be filed only when the mark has been in use in commerce to indicate membership in the collective membership organization specified in the notice of allowance for which the applicant will seek registration in that application.

(ii) A statement of use may be accompanied by a request in accordance with § 2.87 to divide out from the application the goods, services, or classes not yet in use in commerce.

(b) A complete statement of use. A complete statement of use must include the following:

(1) A verified statement alleging:

(i) The applicant believes the applicant is the owner of the mark;

(ii) The mark is in use in commerce;

(iii) The date of first use of the mark anywhere on or in connection with the goods, services, and/or to indicate membership in the collective organization specified in the application, and the date of first use of the mark in commerce. If the statement of use specifies more than one item of goods or services in a class, the dates of use are required for only one item of goods or services specified in that class;

(iv) The goods, services, and/or nature of the collective membership organization specified in the notice of allowance. The goods or services specified in a statement of use must conform to those goods or services specified in the notice of allowance for trademark, service mark, collective trademark, collective service mark, or certification mark applications. Any goods or services specified in the notice of allowance that are omitted from the identification of goods or services in the statement of use will be presumed to be deleted and the deleted goods or services may not be reinserted in the application. For collective membership mark applications, the description of the nature of the collective membership organization in the statement of use must conform to that specified in the notice of allowance; and

(v) For a collective mark and certification mark, the applicant is exercising legitimate control over the use in commerce of the mark;

(2) One specimen showing how the applicant, member, or authorized user uses the mark in commerce. See § 2.56 for the requirements for specimens;

(3) Fee(s). The fee required by § 2.6 per class. The applicant must pay a filing fee sufficient to cover at least one class within the statutory time for filing the statement of use, or the application will be abandoned. If the applicant submits a fee insufficient to cover all the classes in a multiple-class application, the applicant should specify the classes to be abandoned. If the applicant timely submits a fee sufficient to pay for at least one class, but insufficient to cover all the classes, and the applicant has not specified the class(es) to be abandoned, the Office will issue a notice granting the applicant additional time to submit the fee(s) for the remaining class(es) or to specify the class(es) to be abandoned. If the applicant does not submit the required fee(s) or specify the class(es) to be abandoned within the set time period, the Office will apply the fees paid, beginning with the lowest numbered class, in ascending order. The Office will delete the class(es) not covered by the fees submitted;

(4) For a collective mark, the requirements of § 2.44(a)(4)(i)(A);

(5) For a certification mark, the requirements of § 2.45(a)(4)(i)(A) through (C); and

(6) The title “Statement of Use” should appear at the top of the first page of the document, if not filed through TEAS.

(c) Minimum filing requirements for a timely filed statement of use. The Office will review a timely filed statement of use to determine whether it meets the following minimum requirements:

(1) The fee required by § 2.6 for at least one class;

(2) One specimen of the mark as used in commerce; and

(3) The verified statement in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. If this verified statement is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant must submit a substitute verified statement on or before the statutory deadline for filing the statement of use.

(d) Deficiency notification. If the statement of use is filed within the permitted time period but does not meet the minimum requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section, the Office will notify the applicant of the deficiency. If the time permitted for the applicant to file a statement of use has not expired, the applicant may correct the deficiency.

(e) Notification of refusals and requirements. A timely filed statement of use that meets the minimum requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section will be examined in accordance with §§ 2.61 through 2.69. If, as a result of the examination of the statement of use, the applicant is found not entitled to registration, the applicant will be notified and advised of the reasons and of any formal requirements or refusals. The statement of use may be amended in accordance with §§ 2.59 and 2.71 through 2.75.

(f) Statement of use may not be withdrawn. The applicant may not withdraw a timely filed statement of use to return to the previous status of awaiting submission of a statement of use, regardless of whether it is in compliance with paragraph (c) of this section.

(g) Verification not filed within reasonable time. If the verified statements in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and, if applicable, (b)(1)(v) of this section are not filed within a reasonable time after they are signed, the Office may require the applicant to submit substitute verified statements attesting that the mark is in use in commerce, and, if applicable, the applicant is exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce.

(h) Amending the application. The statement of use may include amendments in accordance with §§ 2.51, 2.59, and 2.71 through 2.75.

(i) Concurrent use. If the application is amended to concurrent use under § 2.73, the statement of use must include a verified statement modified in accordance with § 2.33(f), § 2.44(d), or § 2.45(d).

(j) Multiple-class application. For the requirements of a multiple-class application, see § 2.86.

(k) Abandonment. The failure to timely file a statement of use which meets the minimum requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section shall result in the abandonment of the application.

21. Revise § 2.89 to read as follows:§ 2.89 Extensions of time for filing a statement of use.

(a) First extension request after issuance of notice of allowance. The applicant may request a six-month extension of time to file the statement of use required by § 2.88. The extension request must be filed within six months of the date of issuance of the notice of allowance under section 13(b)(2) of the Act and must include the following:

(1) A written request for an extension of time to file the statement of use;

(2) The fee required by § 2.6 per class. The applicant must pay a filing fee sufficient to cover at least one class within the statutory time for filing the extension request, or the request will be denied. If the applicant submits a fee insufficient to cover all the classes in a multiple-class application, the applicant should specify the classes to be abandoned. If the applicant timely submits a fee sufficient to pay for at least one class, but insufficient to cover all the classes, and the applicant has not specified the class(es) to be abandoned, the Office will issue a notice granting the applicant additional time to submit the fee(s) for the remaining classes, or specify the class(es) to be abandoned. If the applicant does not submit the required fee(s) or specify the class(es) to be abandoned within the set time period, the Office will apply the fees paid, beginning with the lowest numbered class, in ascending order. The Office will delete the class(es) not covered by the fees submitted; and

(3) A verified statement that the applicant has a continued bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, specifying the relevant goods or services, for trademarks or service marks; or that the applicant has a continued bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce, specifying the relevant goods, services, or collective membership organization, for collective marks or certification marks. If this verified statement is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant must submit a substitute verified statement within six months of the date of issuance of the notice of allowance.

(b) Subsequent extension requests. Before the expiration of the previously granted extension of time, the applicant may request further six-month extensions of time to file the statement of use by submitting the following:

(1) A written request for an extension of time to file the statement of use;

(2) The requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section for a fee;

(3) A verified statement that the applicant has a continued bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, specifying the relevant goods or services, for trademarks or service marks; or that the applicant has a continued bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce, specifying the relevant goods, services, or collective membership organization, for collective marks or certification marks. If this verified statement is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant must submit a substitute verified statement before the expiration of the previously granted extension; and

(4) A showing of good cause, as specified in paragraph (d) of this section.

(c) Four subsequent extension requests permitted. Extension requests specified in paragraph (b) of this section will be granted only in six-month increments and may not aggregate more than 24 months total.

(d) Good cause. A showing of good cause must include:

(1) For a trademark or service mark, a statement of the applicant's ongoing efforts to make use of the mark in commerce on or in connection with each of the relevant goods or services. Those efforts may include product or service research or development, market research, manufacturing activities, promotional activities, steps to acquire distributors, steps to obtain governmental approval, or other similar activities. In the alternative, the applicant must submit a satisfactory explanation for the failure to make efforts to use the mark in commerce.

(2) For a collective mark, a statement of ongoing efforts to make use of the mark in commerce by members on or in connection with each of the relevant goods or services or in connection with the applicant's collective membership organization. Those efforts may include the development of standards, the steps taken to acquire members such as marketing and promotional activities targeted to potential members, training members regarding the standards, or other similar activities. In the alternative, the applicant must submit a satisfactory explanation for the failure to make efforts for applicant's members to use the mark in commerce.

(3) For a certification mark, a statement of ongoing efforts to make use of the mark in commerce by authorized users on or in connection with each of the relevant goods or services. Those efforts may include the development of certification standards, steps taken to obtain governmental approval or acquire authorized users, marketing and promoting the recognition of the certification program or of the goods or services that meet the certification standards of the applicant, training authorized users regarding the standards, or other similar activities. In the alternative, the applicant must submit a satisfactory explanation for the failure to make efforts for applicant's authorized users to use the mark in commerce.

(e) Extension request filed in conjunction with or after a statement of use. (1) An applicant may file one request for a six-month extension of time for filing a statement of use when filing a statement of use or after filing a statement of use if time remains in the existing six-month period in which the statement of use was filed, provided that the time requested would not extend beyond 36 months from the date of issuance of the notice of allowance. Thereafter, applicant may not request any further extensions of time.

(2) A request for an extension of time that is filed under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, must comply with all the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, if it is an applicant's first extension request, or paragraph (b) of this section, if it is a second or subsequent extension request. However, in a request under paragraph (b) of this section, an applicant may satisfy the requirement for a showing of good cause by asserting the applicant believes the applicant has made valid use of the mark in commerce, as evidenced by the submitted statement of use, but that if the statement of use is found by the Office to be fatally defective, the applicant will need additional time in which to file a new statement of use.

(f) Goods or services. For trademark, service mark, collective trademark, collective service mark, or certification mark applications, the goods or services specified in a request for an extension of time for filing a statement of use must conform to those goods or services specified in the notice of allowance. Any goods or services specified in the notice of allowance that are omitted from the identification of goods or services in the request for extension of time will be presumed to be deleted and the deleted goods or services may not thereafter be reinserted in the application. For collective membership mark applications, the description of the nature of the collective membership organization in the request for extension of time must conform to that set forth in the notice of allowance.

(g) Notice of grant or denial. The applicant will be notified of the grant or denial of a request for an extension of time, and of the reasons for a denial. Failure to notify the applicant of the grant or denial of the request prior to the expiration of the existing period or requested extension does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility of timely filing a statement of use under § 2.88. If, after denial of an extension request, there is time remaining in the existing six-month period for filing a statement of use, applicant may submit a substitute request for extension of time to correct the defects of the prior request. Otherwise, the only recourse available after denial of a request for an extension of time is to file a petition to the Director in accordance with § 2.66 or § 2.146. A petition from the denial of an extension request must be filed within two months of the date of issuance of the denial of the request. If the petition is granted, the term of the requested six-month extension that was the subject of the petition will run from the date of expiration of the previously existing six-month period for filing a statement of use.

(h) Verification not filed within reasonable time. If the verified statement in paragraph (a)(3) or (b)(3) of this section is not filed within a reasonable time after it is signed, the Office may require the applicant to submit a substitute verified statement attesting that the applicant has a continued bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, for trademarks or service marks; or that the applicant has a continued bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce, for collective marks or certification marks.

22. Amend § 2.146 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:§ 2.146 Petitions to the Director.

(c) Every petition to the Director shall include a statement of the facts relevant to the petition, the points to be reviewed, the action or relief requested, and the fee required by § 2.6. Any brief in support of the petition shall be embodied in or accompany the petition. The petition must be signed by the petitioner, someone with legal authority to bind the petitioner (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner qualified to practice under § 11.14 of this chapter, in accordance with the requirements of § 2.193(e)(5). When facts are to be proved on petition, the petitioner must submit proof in the form of verified statements signed by someone with firsthand knowledge of the facts to be proved, and any exhibits.

(d) A petition must be filed within two months of the date of issuance of the action from which relief is requested, unless a different deadline is specified elsewhere in this chapter, and no later than two months from the date when Office records are updated to show that the registration has been cancelled or has expired.

23. Amend § 2.161 by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d)(1) and (3), and (e) through (h) and adding paragraphs (i) through (k) to read as follows:§ 2.161 Requirements for a complete affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse.

(b) Include a verified statement attesting to the use in commerce or excusable nonuse of the mark within the period set forth in section 8 of the Act. This verified statement must be executed on or after the beginning of the filing period specified in § 2.160(a);

(c) Include the U.S. registration number;

(d)(1) Include the fee required by § 2.6 for each class that the affidavit or declaration covers;

(3) If at least one fee is submitted for a multiple-class registration, but the fee is insufficient to cover all the classes, and the class(es) to which the fee(s) should be applied are not specified, the Office will issue a notice requiring either submission of the additional fee(s) or specification of the class(es) to which the initial fee(s) should be applied. Additional fee(s) may be submitted if the requirements of § 2.164 are met. If the additional fee(s) are not submitted within the time period set out in the Office action and the class(es) to which the original fee(s) should be applied are not specified, the Office will presume that the fee(s) cover the classes in ascending order, beginning with the lowest numbered class;

(e)(1) Specify the goods, services, or nature of the collective membership organization for which the mark is in use in commerce, and/or the goods, services, or nature of the collective membership organization for which excusable nonuse is claimed under paragraph (f)(2) of this section; and

(2) Specify the goods, services, or classes being deleted from the registration, if the affidavit or declaration covers fewer than all the goods, services, or classes in the registration;

(f)(1) State that the registered mark is in use in commerce; or

(2) If the registered mark is not in use in commerce on or in connection with all the goods, services, or classes specified in the registration, set forth the date when such use of the mark in commerce stopped and the approximate date when such use is expected to resume; and recite facts to show that nonuse as to those goods, services, or classes is due to special circumstances that excuse the nonuse and is not due to an intention to abandon the mark; and

(g) Include one specimen showing how the mark is in use in commerce for each class in the registration, unless excusable nonuse is claimed under paragraph (f)(2) of this section. When requested by the Office, additional specimens must be provided. The specimen must meet the requirements of § 2.56.

(h) The Office may require the owner to furnish such information, exhibits, affidavits or declarations, and such additional specimens as may be reasonably necessary to the proper examination of the affidavit or declaration under section 8 of the Act.

(i) Additional requirements for a collective mark: In addition to the above requirements, a complete affidavit or declaration pertaining to a collective mark must:

(1) State that the owner is exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce; and

(2) If the registration issued from an application based solely on section 44 of the Act, state the nature of the owner's control over the use of the mark by the members in the first affidavit or declaration filed under paragraph (a) of this section.

(j) Additional requirements for a certification mark: In addition to the above requirements, a complete affidavit or declaration pertaining to a certification mark must:

(1) Include a copy of the certification standards specified in § 2.45(a)(4)(i)(B);

(i) Submitting certification standards for the first time. If the registration issued from an application based solely on section 44 of the Act, include a copy of the certification standards in the first affidavit or declaration filed under paragraph (a) of this section; or

(ii) Certification standards submitted in prior filing. If the certification standards in use at the time of filing the affidavit or declaration have not changed since the date they were previously submitted to the Office, include a statement to that effect; if the certification standards in use at the time of filing the affidavit or declaration have changed since the date they were previously submitted to the Office, include a copy of the revised certification standards;

(2) State that the owner is exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce; and

(3) Satisfy the requirements of § 2.45(a)(4)(i)(A) and (C).

(k) For requirements of a complete affidavit or declaration of use in commerce or excusable nonuse for a registration that issued from a section 66(a) basis application, see § 7.37.

24. Amend § 2.167 by revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a) and (c) through (g) and adding paragraphs (h) through (k) to read as follows:§ 2.167 Affidavit or declaration under section 15.

The affidavit or declaration in accordance with § 2.20 provided by section 15 of the Act for acquiring incontestability for a mark registered on the Principal Register or a mark registered under the Trademark Act of 1881 or 1905 and published under section 12(c) of the Act (see § 2.153) must:

(a) Be verified;

(c) For a trademark, service mark, collective trademark, collective service mark, and certification mark, recite the goods or services stated in the registration on or in connection with which the mark has been in continuous use in commerce for a period of five years after the date of registration or date of publication under section 12(c) of the Act, and is still in use in commerce; for a collective membership mark, describe the nature of the owner's collective membership organization specified in the registration in connection with which the mark has been in continuous use in commerce for a period of five years after the date of registration or date of publication under section 12(c) of the Act, and is still in use in commerce;

(d) Specify that there has been no final decision adverse to the owner's claim of ownership of such mark for such goods, services, or collective membership organization, or to the owner's right to register the same or to keep the same on the register;

(e) Specify that there is no proceeding involving said rights pending in the Office or in a court and not finally disposed of;

(f) Be filed within one year after the expiration of any five-year period of continuous use following registration or publication under section 12(c) of the Act; and

(g) Include the fee required by § 2.6 for each class to which the affidavit or declaration pertains in the registration. If no fee, or a fee insufficient to cover at least one class, is filed at an appropriate time, the affidavit or declaration will not be refused if the required fee(s) (see § 2.6) is filed in the Office within the time limit set forth in the notification of this defect by the Office. If the submitted fees are insufficient to cover all classes in the registration, the particular class or classes to which the affidavit or declaration pertains should be specified.

(h) If the affidavit or declaration fails to satisfy any of the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section, the owner will be notified in an Office action that the affidavit or declaration cannot be acknowledged. If a response is not received within the time period provided or does not satisfy the requirements of the Office action, the affidavit or declaration will be abandoned.

(i) If the affidavit or declaration satisfies paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section, the Office will issue a notice of acknowledgement.

(j) An affidavit or declaration may be abandoned by the owner upon petition to the Director under § 2.146 either before or after the notice of acknowledgement has issued.

(k) If an affidavit or declaration is abandoned, the owner may file a new affidavit or declaration with a new filing fee.

(b) Requirements for request. A request for amendment or disclaimer must:

(1) Include the fee required by § 2.6;

(2) Be verified and signed in accordance with § 2.193(e)(6); and

(3) If the amendment involves a change in the mark: one new specimen per class showing the mark as used on or in connection with the goods, services, or collective membership organization; a verified statement that the specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the amendment; and a new drawing of the amended mark. When requested by the Office, additional specimens must be provided.

(4) The Office may require the owner to furnish such specimens, information, exhibits, and affidavits or declarations as may be reasonably necessary to the proper examination of the amendment.

(c) Registration must still contain registrable matter. The registration as amended must still contain registrable matter, and the mark as amended must be registrable as a whole.

(d) Amendment may not materially alter the mark. An amendment or disclaimer that materially alters the character of the mark will not be permitted, in accordance with section 7(e) of the Act.

(e) Amendment of identification of goods, services, or collective membership organization. No amendment in the identification of goods or services, or description of the nature of the collective membership organization, in a registration will be permitted except to restrict the identification or to change it in ways that would not require republication of the mark.

(f) Amendment of certification statement for certification marks. An amendment of the certification statement specified in § 2.45(a)(4)(i)(A) or (a)(4)(ii)(A) that would materially alter the certification statement will not be permitted, in accordance with section 7(e) of the Act.

(g) Conforming amendments may be required. If the registration includes a disclaimer, description of the mark, or other miscellaneous statement, any request to amend the registration must include a request to make any necessary conforming amendments to the disclaimer, description, or other statement.

(h) Elimination of disclaimer. No amendment seeking the elimination of a disclaimer will be permitted, unless deletion of the disclaimed portion of the mark is also sought.

(i) No amendment to add or delete section 2(f) claim of acquired distinctiveness. An amendment seeking the addition or deletion of a claim of acquired distinctiveness will not be permitted.

(d) If the renewal application covers less than all the goods, services, or classes in the registration, then a list specifying the particular goods, services, or classes to be renewed.

(e) If at least one fee is submitted for a multiple-class registration, but the fee is insufficient to cover all the classes and the class(es) to which the fee(s) should be applied are not specified, the Office will issue a notice requiring either the submission of additional fee(s) or an indication of the class(es) to which the original fee(s) should be applied. Additional fee(s) may be submitted if the requirements of § 2.185 are met. If the required fee(s) are not submitted and the class(es) to which the original fee(s) should be applied are not specified, the Office will presume that the fee(s) cover the classes in ascending order, beginning with the lowest numbered class.

(2) Sign the document using some other form of electronic signature specified by the Director.

(e) Proper person to sign. Documents filed in connection with a trademark application or registration must be signed by a proper person. Unless otherwise specified by law, the following requirements apply:

(1) Verified statement of facts. A verified statement in support of an application for registration, amendment to an application for registration, allegation of use under § 2.76 or § 2.88, request for extension of time to file a statement of use under § 2.89, or an affidavit under section 8, 12(c), 15, or 71 of the Act must satisfy the requirements of § 2.2(n), and be signed by the owner or a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the owner. A person who is properly authorized to verify facts on behalf of an owner is:

(f) Signature as certification. The presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any document by any person, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a certification under § 11.18(b) of this chapter. Violations of § 11.18(b) of this chapter may jeopardize the validity of the application or registration, and may result in the imposition of sanctions under § 11.18(c) of this chapter. Any practitioner violating § 11.18(b) of this chapter may also be subject to disciplinary action. See § 11.18(d) and § 11.804 of this chapter.

PART 7—RULES OF PRACTICE IN FILINGS PURSUANT TO THE PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE MADRID AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION OF MARKS29. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as follows:Authority:

15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted.

30. Amend § 7.1 by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:§ 7.1 Definitions of terms as used in this part.

(c) The acronym TEAS means the Trademark Electronic Application System, available at http://www.uspto.gov.

(f) The definitions specified in § 2.2(k) and (n) of this chapter apply to this part.

31. Amend § 7.37 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), (d)(1), (d)(3), (e), (f)(1), (g), and (h) and adding paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows:§ 7.37 Requirements for a complete affidavit or declaration of use in commerce or excusable nonuse.

(b) Include a verified statement attesting to the use in commerce or excusable nonuse of the mark within the period set forth in section 71 of the Act. The verified statement must be executed on or after the beginning of the filing period specified in § 7.36(b). A person who is properly authorized to sign on behalf of the holder is:

(1) A person with legal authority to bind the holder;

(d)(1) Include the fee required by § 7.6 for each class that the affidavit or declaration covers;

(3) If at least one fee is submitted for a multiple-class registration, but the fee is insufficient to cover all the classes and the class(es) to which the fee(s) should be applied are not specified, the Office will issue a notice requiring either submission of the additional fee(s) or specification of the class(es) to which the initial fee(s) should be applied. Additional fees may be submitted if the requirements of § 7.39 are met. If the additional fee(s) are not submitted within the time period set out in the Office action and the class(es) to which the original fee(s) should be applied are not specified, the Office will presume that the fee(s) cover the classes in ascending order, beginning with the lowest numbered class;

(e)(1) Specify the goods, services, or nature of the collective membership organization for which the mark is in use in commerce, and/or the goods, services, or nature of the collective membership organization for which excusable nonuse is claimed under paragraph (f)(2) of this section; and

(2) Specify the goods, services, or classes being deleted from the registration, if the affidavit or declaration covers fewer than all the goods, services, or classes in the registration;

(f)(1) State that the registered mark is in use in commerce; or

(2) If the registered mark is not in use in commerce on or in connection with all the goods, services, or classes specified in the registration, set forth the date when such use of the mark in commerce stopped and the approximate date when such use is expected to resume; and recite facts to show that nonuse as to those goods, services, or classes is due to special circumstances that excuse the nonuse and is not due to an intention to abandon the mark; and

(g) Include one specimen showing how the mark is in use in commerce for each class in the registration, unless excusable nonuse is claimed under paragraph (f)(2) of this section. When requested by the Office, additional specimens must be provided. The specimen must meet the requirements of § 2.56 of this chapter.

(h) The Office may require the holder to furnish such information, exhibits, affidavits or declarations, and such additional specimens as may be reasonably necessary to the proper examination of the affidavit or declaration under section 71 of the Act.

(i) Additional requirements for a collective mark: In addition to the above requirements, a complete affidavit or declaration pertaining to a collective mark must:

(1) State that the holder is exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce; and

(2) State the nature of the holder's control over the use of the mark by the members in the first affidavit or declaration filed under paragraph (a) of this section.

(j) Additional requirements for a certification mark: In addition to the above requirements, a complete affidavit or declaration pertaining to a certification mark must:

(1) Include a copy of the certification standards specified in § 2.45(a)(4)(i)(B) of this chapter;

(i) Submitting certification standards for the first time. In the first affidavit or declaration filed under paragraph (a) of this section, include a copy of the certification standards; or

(ii) Certification standards submitted in prior filing. If the certification standards in use at the time of filing the affidavit or declaration have not changed since the date they were previously submitted to the Office, include a statement to that effect; if the certification standards in use at the time of filing the affidavit or declaration have changed since the date they were previously submitted to the Office, include a copy of the revised certification standards;

(2) State that the holder is exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce; and

(3) Satisfy the requirements of § 2.45(a)(4)(i)(A) and (C) of this chapter.

Dated: June 5, 2015.Russell Slifer,Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.[FR Doc. 2015-14267 Filed 6-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-PENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY40 CFR Part 52[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0821; FRL-9928-80-Region 6]Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of New Mexico; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard and Repeal of Cement Kilns RuleAGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

Under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from the State of New Mexico pertaining to the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) for Lead (Pb). EPA is also approving a revision to the New Mexico SIP that removes a repealed state-wide cement kilns rule from the SIP.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on July 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0821. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our December 11, 2014, proposal (79 FR 73512). In that rulemaking action, we proposed to approve (1) a September 9, 2011, SIP submittal from the State of New Mexico pertaining to the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the 2008 Pb NAAQS and (2) a July 31, 2014, SIP submittal removing from the SIP the repealed New Mexico cement kilns rule. The public comment period for the December 11, 2014, proposal (79 FR 73512) expired on January 12, 2015, and we did not receive any comments concerning our proposal. Therefore, we are finalizing our proposed action.

II. Final Action

We are approving the September 9, 2011, SIP submittal pertaining to implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. We are also approving the July 31, 2014, SIP submittal which removes the repealed New Mexico cement kilns rule (NMAC 20.2.12—Cement Kilns).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 10, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purpose of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart GG—New Mexico2. In § 52.1620:a. In paragraph (c), the first table titled “EPA Approved New Mexico Regulations” is amended by removing the entry “Part 12, Cement Kilns”; andb. In paragraph (e), the second table titled “EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP” is amended by adding an entry at the end of the table for “Infrastructure and Transport for the 2008 Pb NAAQS”.

The addition reads as follows:

§ 52.1620Identification of plan.

(e) * * *

EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIPName of SIP provisionApplicable geographic or

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Iowa to amend Best Management Practices (BMPs) for grain vacuuming operations at Group 1 grain elevators. Additional revisions to the SIP include revised definitions, revised requirements for Department forms, and rescinding rule requirements and references for conditional permits.

DATES:

This direct final rule will be effective August 10, 2015, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 13, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0358, by one of the following methods:

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0358. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7039, or by email at Hamilton.heather@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?III. What action is EPA taking?IV. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsI. What is being addressed in this document?

The State of Iowa requested EPA approval of revisions to the SIP to amend Best Management Practices (BMPs) for grain vacuuming operations at Group 1 grain elevators. Additional revisions to the SIP include revised definitions, revised requirements for Department forms, and rescinding rule requirements and references for conditional permits.

These revisions were submitted in two separate requests. The amendment to the BMPs was effective on September 10, 2014, and received by EPA on November 20, 2014. The second request for additional revisions was effective on April 22, 2015, and received by EPA on May 4, 2015. Details with regard both submittals are included in the technical support document which is part of this docket.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.

III. What action is EPA taking?

EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to State of Iowa State Implementation Plan (SIP). Chapter 22, “Controlling Pollution,” is amended to revise the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Group 1 grain elevators to include grain vacuuming operations. Group 1 grain elevators are country grain elevators, country grain terminal elevators, or grain terminal elevators with the potential to emit less than 15 tons of PM10 per year. Existing Group 1 facilities are those that commenced construction or reconstruction before February 6, 2008; new facilities are those that commenced construction after February 6, 2008. Revised BMPs were included with the SIP submission.

Additional revisions made to the Iowa SIP include revising the definition of volatile organic compounds with the most recent Federally-approved date; removing all references to conditional permits throughout the SIP, and rescinding the air quality forms section.

Conditional permits were added to the Iowa Code in the 1970s to facilitate electric utility rate setting. The Iowa Utilities Board changed the rate setting requirements so that conditional permits were not needed. There is no record of issuing a conditional permit to an electric facility; therefore, references to conditional permits are being removed with this action.

References to obsolete and duplicative air quality forms are being removed from the SIP.

We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. The revised BMPs were developed through a stakeholder workgroup that was jointly organized by IDNR, and grain elevator operators and grain vacuum vendors. One comment was received during the public comment period in support of the revised BMPs. The remaining revisions are largely administrative, and consistent with Federal regulations. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to approve the SIP revisions. If adverse comments are received on this direct final rule we will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Iowa Regulations in chapters 20, 22, 31, and 33 described in the direct final amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 10, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart Q—Iowa2. In § 52.820(c), the table is amended by revising the entries for “567-20.2”, “567-20.3”, “567-22.1”, “567-22.2”, “567-22.3”, “567-22.10”, “567-31.20”, and “567-33.3” to read as follows:§ 52.820 Identification of plan.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD), Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD), and San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emission statements, definitions, and vehicle and mobile equipment coating operations (VMECO). We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES:

This rule is effective on August 10, 2015 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by July 13, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0246, by one of the following methods:

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to the EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3024 lazarus.arnold@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

Table of ContentsI. The State's SubmittalA. What rules did the State submit?B. Are there other versions of these rules?C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?II. The EPA's Evaluation and ActionA. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?C. The EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the RulesD. Public Comment and Final ActionIII. Incorporation by ReferenceIV. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsI. The State's SubmittalA. What rules did the State submit?

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this action with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On May 5, 2014, the EPA determined that the submittal for BCAQMD Rule 434 and FRAQMD Rule 3.19 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On December 18, 2014, the EPA determined that BCAQMD Rule 101 and SLOCAPCD Rule 222 met the completeness criteria.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

There are no previous versions of BCAQMD Rule 434, FRAQMD Rule 3.19, and SLOCAPCD Rule 222 in the SIP. We approved an earlier version of BCAQMD Rule 101 into the SIP on February 3, 1987 (52 FR 3226).

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions.

BCAQMD Rule 101, “Definitions” is amended by adding new definitions and revising existing definitions which improve clarity and enforceability of other BCAQMD rules which reduce emissions.

8. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1151, Motor Vehicle and Motor Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations, amended December 2, 2005, and approved into the SIP on September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58459.)

9. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 4612, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations, amended October 21, 2010, and approved into the SIP on February 13, 2012 (77 FR 7536.)

Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each VOC major source in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)).

The FRAQMD covers both Yuba and Sutter Counties, and the EPA has designated a portion of the FRAQMD (specifically, southern Sutter County) as a Severe nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard and the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standards). See 40 CFR 81.305. Therefore, FRAQMD must implement RACT for at least portions of the District. The EPA believes that FRAQMD Rule 3.19 does not implement RACT-level requirements. However, on September 29, 2014, CARB submitted to the EPA on behalf of FRAQMD, “Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis and Negative Declaration,” dated July 3, 2014, which demonstrates that Rule 3.19 does not have to implement RACT because no CTGs apply to the source category and there are no major sources in the non-attainment area that the rule addresses. RACT is not required of the other rules addressed in this action because they are not intended to directly control emissions.

As noted above, CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) requires all states with ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 (of part D of title I), i.e., as Marginal, Moderate, Serious, etc., to submit SIP revisions that require owners and operators of stationary sources of VOCs and NOX to provide the state with a statement showing the actual emissions from that source. The EPA has designated all or portions of BCAQMD and SLOCAPCD as Marginal nonattainment areas for the 1997 or the 2008 8-hour ozone standards. See 40 CFR 81.305. Thus, BCAQMD Rule 434 and SLOCAPCD Rule 222 are required SIP revisions. Based on our evaluation of these two emissions statement rules, we find that they meet the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(i).

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, rule stringency, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rules but are not currently the basis for rule disapproval.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements.1 We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by July 13, 2015, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on August 10, 2015. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the BCAQMD, FRAQMD and SLOCAPCD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 10, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

The National Council on Disability is proposing regulations to implement the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Government in the Sunshine Act. This proposed rulemaking describes the procedures for members of the public to request access to records. In addition, this document also proposes procedures for the Council's responses to these requests, including the timeframe for response and applicable fees. These rules should be read in conjunction with the text of the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, the Government in the Sunshine Act, and the Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget.

DATES:

You must submit comments on or before August 10, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in the heading of this document, by the following methods:

To ensure proper handling, please include the docket number on your correspondence. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further information about submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joan Durocher, General Counsel, National Council on Disability, at 202-272-2004 or jdurocher@ncd.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov. Information made available to the public includes personally identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter. Additional information about the handling of personally identifiable information submitted for the public record is available in the system of records notice for the federal dockets management system, EPA-GOVT-2, published in the Federal Register at 70 FR 15086 (March 24, 2005).

I. Background

The National Council on Disability (Council) was statutorily created in 1978 through amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 780 et seq.). The statute was amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (Pub. L. 113-128) in 2014. Since 1984, the Council has been an independent agency outside Executive departments that neither regulates nor adjudicates. The Council is charged with advising the President, Congress, and other federal agencies regarding policies, programs, practices, and procedures that affect people with disabilities.

This rulemaking action would implement the Council's procedures required under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended; the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act), 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended; and the Government in the Sunshine Act (Sunshine Act), 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended. The FOIA requires agencies to implement procedures for public access to records. This proposed rulemaking describes the procedures for members of the public to request access to records. In addition, this document also proposes procedures for the Council's responses to these requests, including the timeframe for response and applicable fees.

The Privacy Act imposes requirements on agencies that maintain systems of records pertaining to individuals. These requirements include procedures for an individual to request access to or amendment of information about him or herself maintained in a system of records. This proposed rulemaking describes the Council's procedures for providing individuals access to their records or to request amendment of those records, including the timeframes for response and any applicable fees.

The Sunshine Act requires public meetings for the deliberations of federal agencies headed by collegial bodies comprised of members. Agencies subject to the Sunshine Act must publish procedures for such public meetings. As an agency headed by a Council comprised entirely of individuals appointed by the President and Congress, the Council is subject to the Sunshine Act and must publish a rulemaking to implement its public meeting procedures, including procedures to close meetings when permitted by the Sunshine Act.

Most of the proposed regulatory provisions contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking are drawn directly from requirements specified in the FOIA, Privacy Act, and Sunshine Act. In addition, the Council modeled its proposed procedures on those already adopted by other federal agencies to incorporate for its own use those practices that represent “best practices” for FOIA, Privacy Act, and Sunshine Act administration.

II. Regulatory Analysis and NoticesExecutive Order 12866

This proposal is not a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. The economic impact of these regulations should be minimal, therefore, further economic evaluation is not necessary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions. The Council considered the effects on this proposed rulemaking on small entities and certifies that these proposed rules will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, requires each agency to assess the effects of its regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. Agencies must prepare a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives anytime a proposed or final rule imposes a new or additional enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal government or the private sector that causes those entities to spend, in aggregate, $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year (defined in UMRA as a “federal mandate”). The Council determined that such a written statement is not required in connection with these proposed rules because they will not impose a federal mandate, as defined in UMRA.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Council analyzed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and determined that it would not significantly affect the environment; therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. This proposed action does not include an information collection for purposes of the PRA.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and the Council determined that it does not have sufficient implications for federalism to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Administrative practice and procedure, Public availability of information, Meetings.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Council proposes to amend title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, by establishing chapter C, consisting of parts 10000-10049, to read as follows:

CHAPTER C—NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITYPART 10000—PROCEDURES FOR DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACTSec.10000.1 Purpose and scope.10000.2 Definitions.10000.3 Availability of records.10000.4 Categories of exemptions.10000.5 Requests for records.10000.6 Responsibility for responding to requests.10000.7 Administrative appeals.10000.8 Timeframe for Council's response to a FOIA request or administrative appeal.10000.9 Business information.10000.10 Fees.Authority:

Chairperson means the Chairperson of the Council, as appointed by the President, or any person to whom the Council has delegated authority for the matter concerned.

Chief FOIA Officer means the senior official to whom the Council delegated responsibility for efficient and appropriate compliance with the FOIA, currently delegated to the General Counsel.

Commercial use request means a FOIA request from or on behalf of a requester that seeks information for a use or purpose that furthers their commercial, trade, or profit interests, including pursuit of those interests through litigation.

Confidential business information means trade secrets or confidential or privileged commercial or financial information submitted to the Council by a person that may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA.

Council means the National Council on Disability, established by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 780 et seq.), as amended, and amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (Pub. L. 113-128) in 2014.

Direct costs are those expenses that an agency incurs in searching for and duplicating (and, in the case of commercial use requests, reviewing) records in order to respond to a FOIA request. For example, direct costs include the salary of the employee performing the work (i.e., the basic rate of pay for the employee, plus 16 percent of that rate to cover benefits) and the cost of operating computers and other electronic equipment, such as photocopiers and scanners. Direct costs do not include overhead expenses such as the costs of space, and of heating or lighting a facility.

Educational institution means a preschool, a public or private elementary or secondary school, an institution of undergraduate or graduate higher education, an institution of professional education, or an institution of vocational education, which operates a program or programs of scholarly research. A requester in this fee category must show that the request is authorized by, and is made under the auspices of, an educational institution and that the records are not sought for a commercial use, but rather are sought to further scholarly research. To fall within this fee category, the request must serve the scholarly research goals of the institution rather than an individual research goal.

(1) Example 1. A request from a professor of geology at a university for records relating to soil erosion, written on letterhead of the Department of Geology, would be presumed to be from an educational institution.

(2) Example 2. A request from the same professor of geology seeking drug information from the Food and Drug Administration in furtherance of a murder mystery he is writing would not be presumed to be an institutional request, regardless of whether it was written on institutional stationery.

(3) Example 3. A student who makes a request in furtherance of the completion of a course of instruction would be presumed to be carrying out an individual research goal, rather than a scholarly research goal of the institution and would not qualify as part of this fee category.

Fee waiver means the waiver or reduction of fees if a requester can demonstrate meeting the statutory standard that the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.

FOIA means the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended. The FOIA applies to requests for agency records.

FOIA Officer means the individual to whom the Council has delegated authority to carry out the Council's day-to-day FOIA administration, currently delegated to the Council's Attorney Advisor.

FOIA Public Liaison means the individual designated by the Chairperson to assist FOIA requesters with concerns about the Council's processing of their FOIA request, including assistance in resolving disputes, currently delegated to the Council's Attorney Advisor.

Non-commercial scientific institution means an organization operated solely for the purpose of conducting scientific research, the results of which are not intended to promote any product or research, and not operated on a commercial basis.

Person includes an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization other than an agency.

Record means any writing, drawing, map, recording, diskette, DVD, CD-ROM, tape, film, photograph, or other documentary material, regardless of medium, by which information is preserved, including documentary material stored electronically.

Redact means delete or mark over.

Representative of the news media is any person or entity organized and operated to publish or broadcast news to the public that actively gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. The term “news” means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. Examples of news media entities include television or radio stations that broadcast “news” to the public at large and publishers of periodicals that disseminate “news” and make their products available through a variety of means to the general public, including news organizations that disseminate solely on the Internet. A request for records supporting the news-dissemination function of the requester shall not be considered to be for a commercial use. “Freelance” journalists who demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through a news media entity shall be considered as a representative of the news media. A publishing contract would provide the clearest evidence that publication is expected; however, components shall also consider a requester's past publication record in making this determination.

Requester category means one of the three categories defined by the Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Fee Guidelines) in which requesters will be placed for the purpose of determining what if any fees for search, review, or duplication may be assessed. They are:

(1) Commercial requestors;

(2) Non-commercial scientific or educational institutions or representatives of the news media; and

(3) All other requestors.

Submitter means any person or entity from whom the Council obtains confidential or privileged business information, directly or indirectly.

Unusual circumstances exist when:

(1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from physically separate facilities;

(2) The need to search for, collect and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or

(3) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request.

§ 10000.3 Availability of records.

Records that are required by the FOIA to be made available for public inspection and copying may be accessed through the Agency's Web site at www.ncd.gov. The Council is responsible for determining which of its records are required to be made publicly available, as well as identifying additional records of interest to the public that are appropriate for public disclosure, and for posting and indexing such records. The Council shall ensure that its Web site of posted records and indices is reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis. The Council's FOIA Public Liaison can assist individuals in locating records particular to a component.

§ 10000.4 Categories of exemptions.

(a) The FOIA does not require disclosure of matters that are:

(1) Specifically authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are, in fact, properly classified under executive order;

(2) Related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the Council;

(3) Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), provided that such statute:

(i)(A) Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or

(B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; and

(ii) If enacted after October 28, 2009, specifically cites to Exemption 3 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3);

(4) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

(5) Inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters, which would not be available at law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the Council;

(6) Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(7) Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information:

(i) Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;

(ii) Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication;

(iii) Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(iv) Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a state, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution that furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source;

(v) Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law; or

(vi) Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.

(8) Contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or

(a) You may request copies of records under this part by email to FOIA@ncd.gov or in writing addressed to FOIA Officer, National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004.

(b) Your request shall reasonably describe the records sought with sufficient specificity, and when possible, include names, dates, and subject matter, in order to permit the FOIA Officer to locate the records with a reasonable amount of effort. If the FOIA Officer cannot locate responsive records based on your written description, you will be notified and advised that further identifying information is necessary before the request can be fulfilled. Although requests are considered either FOIA or Privacy Act requests, the Council processes requests for records in accordance with both laws so as to provide the greatest degree of lawful access while safeguarding an individual's personal privacy.

(c) Your request should specify your preferred form or format (including electronic formats) for the records you seek. We will accommodate your request if the record is readily available in that form or format. When you do not specify the form or format of the response, we will provide responsive records in the form or format most convenient to us.

§ 10000.6 Responsibility for responding to requests.

(a) In general. The Council delegates authority to grant or deny FOIA requests in whole or in part to the Chief FOIA Officer. When conducting a search for responsive records, the FOIA Officer generally will search for records in existence on the date of the search. If another date is used, the FOIA Officer shall inform the requester of the date used.

(b) Responses. The Chief FOIA Officer will notify you of his or her determination to grant or deny your FOIA request in the time frame stated in § 10000.8. The Council will release reasonably segregable non-exempt information. For any adverse determination, including those regarding any disputed fee matter; a denial of a request for a fee waiver; or a determination to withhold a record, in whole or in part, that a record does not exist or cannot be located; or to deny a request for expedited processing; the notice shall include the following information:

(1) The name(s) of any person responsible for the determination to deny the request in whole or in part;

(2) A brief statement of the reason(s) for the denial, including any FOIA exemption applied in denying the request. The FOIA Officer will indicate, if technically feasible, the amount of information deleted and the exemption under which a deletion is made on the released portion of the record, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption;

(3) An estimate of the volume of information withheld, if applicable. This estimate does not need to be provided if it is ascertainable based on redactions in partially disclosed records or if the disclosure of the estimate would harm an interest protected by an applicable FOIA exemption; and

(4) A statement that the adverse determination may be appealed and a description of the requirements for an appeal under § 10000.7.

(c) Consultation, referral, and coordination. When reviewing records located by the Council in response to a request, the Council shall determine whether another agency of the Federal Government is better able to determine whether the record is exempt from disclosure under the FOIA and, if so, whether it should be released as a matter of discretion. As to any such record, the Council shall proceed in one of the following ways:

(1) Consultation. When records originated with the Council, but contain within them information of interest to another agency, the Council should typically consult with that other agency prior to making a release determination.

(2) Referral. (i) When the Council believes that a different agency is best able to determine whether to disclose the record, the Council typically should refer the responsibility for responding to the request regarding that record, as long as the referral is to an agency that is subject to the FOIA. Ordinarily, the agency that originated the record will be presumed to be best able to make the disclosure determination. However, if the Council and the originating agency jointly agree that the former is in the best position to respond regarding the record, then the record may be handled as a consultation.

(ii) Whenever the Council refers any part of the responsibility for responding to a request to another agency, it shall document the referral, maintain a copy of the record that it refers, and notify the requester of the referral and inform the requester of the name(s) of the agency to which the record was referred, including that agency's FOIA contact information.

(3) Coordination. The standard referral procedure is not appropriate where disclosure of the identity of the agency to which the referral would be made could harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption, such as the exemptions that protect personal privacy or national security interests. For example, if the Council responding to a request for records on a living third party locates within its files records originating with a law enforcement agency, and if the existence of that law enforcement interest in the third party was not publicly known, then to disclose that law enforcement interest could cause an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the third party. Similarly, if the Council locates within its files material originating with an Intelligence Community agency, and the involvement of that agency in the matter is classified and not publicly acknowledged, then to disclose or give attribution to the involvement of that Intelligence Community agency could cause national security harms. In such instances, in order to avoid harm to an interest protected by an applicable exemption, the Council should coordinate with the originating agency to seek its views on the disclosability of the record. The release determination for the record that is the subject of the coordination should then be conveyed to the requester by the Council.

§ 10000.7 Administrative appeals.

(a) You may appeal an adverse determination related to your FOIA request, or the Council's failure to respond to your FOIA request within the prescribed time limits, to the Executive Director, National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004.

(b) Your appeal must be in writing and must be postmarked or electronically received by the Executive Director within 60 days of the date of the letter denying your request, in whole or in part. For the most expeditious handling, your appeal letter and envelope should be marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal” and reference the request number.

(c) The Executive Director shall respond to all administrative appeals in writing and within the time frame stated in § 10000.8(d). If the decision affirms, in whole or in part, the Chief FOIA Officer's determination, the letter shall contain a statement of the reasons for the affirmance, including any FOIA exemption(s) applied, and will inform you of the FOIA's provisions for court review. If the Executive Director reverses or modifies the Chief FOIA Officer's determination, in whole or in part, you will be notified in writing and your request will be reprocessed in accordance with that decision. The Council may work with Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to resolve disputes between FOIA requestors and the Council. A requester may also contact OGIS in the following ways: Via mail to OGIS, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road—OGIS, College Park, MD 20740 (ogis.archives.gov), via email at ogis@nara.gov, or via the telephone at 202-741-5770 or 877-684-6448. Facsimile is also available at 202-741-5769.

§ 10000.8 Timeframe for Council's response to a FOIA request or administrative appeal.

(a) In general. The Council ordinarily shall respond to requests according to their order of receipt.

(b) Multi-track processing. (1) The Council may use two or more processing tracks by distinguishing between simple and more complex requests based on the amount of work and/or time needed to process the request, including through limits based on the number of pages involved. If the Council does so, it shall advise requesters in its slower track(s) of the limits of its faster track(s).

(2) Using multitrack processing, the Council may provide requesters in its slower track(s) with an opportunity to limit the scope of their requests in order to qualify for faster processing within the specified limits of the Council's faster track(s). In doing so, the Council will contact the requester by telephone, letter, or email, whichever is more efficient in each case.

(c) Initial decisions. The Council shall determine whether to comply with a FOIA request within 20 working days after our receipt of the request, unless the time frame for response is extended due to unusual circumstances as further described in paragraph (f) of this section. A request is received by the Council, for purposes of commencing the 20-day timeframe for its response, on the day it is properly received by the FOIA Officer. The request must meet all requirements described by these regulations and the FOIA before the 20-day timeframe commences.

(d) Administrative appeals. The Executive Director shall determine whether to affirm or overturn a decision subject to administrative appeal within 20 working days after receipt of the appeal, unless the time frame for response is extended in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.

(e) Tolling timelines. We may toll the 20-day timeframe set forth in paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section:

(1) One time to await information that we reasonably requested from you, as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(iii)(I);

(2) As necessary to clarify with you any fee-related issue.

(3) If we toll the time frame for response under paragraphs (e)(1) or (2) of this section, the tolling period ends upon our receipt of your response.

(f) Unusual circumstances. In the event of unusual circumstances, we may extend the time frame for response provided in paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section by providing you with written notice of the unusual circumstances and the date on which a determination is expected to be made. Where the extension is for more than ten working days, we will provide you with an opportunity either to modify your request so that it may be processed within the statutorily-prescribed time limits or to arrange an alternative time period for processing your request or modified request.

(g) Aggregating requests. When we reasonably believe that multiple requests submitted by a requester, or by a group of requesters acting in concert, involving clearly related matters, can be viewed as a single request that involves unusual circumstances, we may aggregate the requests for the purposes of fees and processing activities.

(h) Expedited processing. You may request that the Council expedite processing of your FOIA request. To receive expedited processing, you must demonstrate a compelling need for such processing.

(1) For requests for expedited processing, a “compelling need” involves:

(i) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or

(ii) A request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, with a time urgency to inform the public of actual or alleged federal government activity.

(2) Your request for expedited processing must be in writing and may be made at the time of the initial FOIA request or at any later time.

(3) Your request for expedited processing must include a statement, certified to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief, explaining in detail the basis for requesting expedited processing. If you are a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, you must establish a particular urgency to inform the public about the federal government activity involved in the request.

(4) The FOIA Officer will decide whether to grant or deny your request for expedited processing and notify the requester within ten calendar days of receipt. You will be notified in writing of the determination. Appeals of adverse decisions regarding expedited processing shall be processed expeditiously.

§ 10000.9 Business information.

(a) Designation of confidential business information. In the event a FOIA request is made for confidential business information previously submitted to the Government by a commercial entity or on behalf of it (hereinafter “submitter”), the regulations in this section apply. When submitting confidential business information, you must use a good-faith effort to designate, by use of appropriate markings, at the time of submission or at a reasonable time thereafter, any portions of your submission that you consider to be exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Your designation will expire ten years after the date of submission unless you request, and provide justification for, a longer designation period.

(b) Notice to submitters. (1) Whenever you designate confidential business information as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, or the Council has reason to believe that your submission may contain confidential business information, we will provide you with prompt written notice of a FOIA request that seeks your business information. The notice shall:

(i) Give you an opportunity to object to disclosure of your information, in whole or in part;

(ii) Describe the business information requested or include copies of the requested records or record portions containing the information; and

(iii) Inform you of the time frame in which you must respond to the notice.

(2) In cases involving a voluminous number of submitters, notice may be made by posting or publishing the notice in a place or manner reasonably likely to accomplish it.

(c) Opportunity to object to disclosure. The Council shall allow you a reasonable time to respond to the notice described in paragraph (b) of this section. If you object to the disclosure of your information, in whole or in part, you must provide us with a detailed written statement of your objection. The statement must specify all grounds for withholding any portion of the information under any FOIA exemption and, when relying on FOIA Exemption 4, it must explain why the information is a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential. If you fail to respond within the time frame specified in the notice, the Council will conclude that you have no objection to disclosure of your information. The Council will only consider information that we receive within the time frame specified in the notice.

(d) Notice of intent to disclose. The Council will consider your objection and specific grounds for non-disclosure in deciding whether to disclose business information. Whenever the Council decides to disclose business information over your objection, we will provide you with written notice that includes:

(1) A statement of the reasons why each of your bases for withholding were not sustained;

(2) A description of the business information to be disclosed; and

(3) A specified disclosure date, which shall be a reasonable time after the notice.

(e) Exceptions to the notice requirement. The notice requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section shall not apply if:

(1) The Council determines that the information is exempt under the FOIA;

(2) The information lawfully has been published or has been officially made available to the public;

(3) Disclosure of the information is required by statute (other than the FOIA) or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600;

(4) The designation made by the submitter under paragraph (a) of this section appears obviously frivolous, except that, in such a case, the Council shall, within a reasonable time prior to the date the disclosure will be made, give the submitter written notice of the final decision to disclose the information.

(f) Requester notification. The Council shall notify a requester whenever it provides the submitter with notice and an opportunity to object to disclosure; whenever it notifies the submitter of its intent to disclose the requested information; and whenever a submitter files a lawsuit to prevent the disclosure of the information.

§ 10000.10 Fees.

(a) We will charge fees that recoup the full allowable direct costs we incur in processing your FOIA request. Fees may be charged for search, review or duplication. We will use the most efficient and least costly methods to comply with your request.

(b) With regard to manual searches for records, we will charge the salary rate(s) (calculated as the basic rate of pay plus 16 percent of that basic rate to cover benefits) of the employee(s) performing the search.

(c) In calculating charges for computer searches for records, we will charge at the actual direct cost of providing the service, including the cost of operating the central processing unit directly attributable to searching for records potentially responsive to your FOIA request and the portion of the salary of the operators/programmers performing the search.

(d) Review fees shall be charged for requesters who make commercial use requests. Review fees shall be assessed only for the initial review—that is the review undertaken the first time we analyze the applicability of a specific exemption to a particular record or portion of a record. Records or portions of records withheld in full under an exemption that is subsequently determined not to apply may be reviewed again to determine the applicability of other exemptions not previously considered. We may assess the costs for such subsequent review. Review fees are charged at the same rates as those charged for a search.

(e) Notice of anticipated fees in excess of $25.00. (1) When the Council determines or estimates that the fees to be assessed in accordance with this section will exceed $25.00, the Council shall notify the requester of the actual or estimated amount of the fees, including a breakdown of the fees for search, review or duplication, unless the requester has indicated a willingness to pay fees as high as those anticipated. If only a portion of the fee can be estimated readily, the Council shall advise the requester accordingly. If the requester is a noncommercial use requester, the notice shall specify that the requester is entitled to the statutory entitlements of 100 pages of duplication at no charge and, if the requester is charged search fees, two hours of search time at no charge, and shall advise the requester whether those entitlements have been provided.

(2) In cases in which a requester has been notified that the actual or estimated fees are in excess of $25.00, the request shall not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the requester commits in writing to pay the actual or estimated total fee, or designates some amount of fees the requester is willing to pay, or in the case of a noncommercial use requester who has not yet been provided with the requester's statutory entitlements, designates that the requester seeks only that which can be provided by the statutory entitlements. The requester must provide the commitment or designation in writing, and must, when applicable, designate an exact dollar amount the requester is willing to pay. The Council is not required to accept payments in installments.

(3) If the requester has indicated a willingness to pay some designated amount of fees, but the Council estimates that the total fee will exceed that amount, the Council shall toll the processing of the request when it notifies the requester of the estimated fees in excess of the amount the requester has indicated a willingness to pay. The Council shall inquire whether the requester wishes to revise the amount of fees the requester is willing to pay or modify the request. Once the requester responds, the time to respond will resume from where it was at the date of the notification.

(4) The Council shall make available its FOIA Public Liaison or other FOIA professional to assist any requester in reformulating a request to meet the requester's needs at a lower cost.

(f) We will charge you the full costs of providing you with the following services:

(1) Certifying that records are true copies; or

(2) Sending records by special methods such as express or certified mail.

(g) We may assess interest charges on an unpaid bill starting on the 31st calendar day following the day on which the billing was sent. Interest shall be at the rate prescribed in 31 U.S.C. 3717 and will accrue from the date of the billing.

(h) We will not charge a search fee for requests by educational institutions, non-commercial scientific institutions, or representatives of the news media. A search fee will be charged for a commercial use requests.

(i) Except for a commercial use request, we will not charge you for the first 100 pages of duplication and the first two hours of search.

(j) If the Council fails to comply with the time limits in which to respond to a request, and if no unusual or exceptional circumstances, as those terms are defined by the FOIA, apply to the processing of the request, it may not charge search fees, or, in the instances of requests from requesters requests by educational institutions (unless the records are sought for a commercial use), noncommercial scientific institutions, or representatives of the news media, may not charge duplication fees.

(k) After processing, actual fees must be equal to or exceed $25, for the Council to require payment of fees.

(l) You may not file multiple requests, each seeking portions of a document or documents, solely for the purpose of avoiding payment of fees. When the Council reasonably believes that a requester, or a group of requesters acting in concert, has submitted requests that constitute a single request involving clearly related matters, we may aggregate those requests and charge accordingly.

(m) We may not require you to make payment before we begin work to satisfy the request or to continue work on a request, unless:

(1) We estimate or determine that the allowable charges that you may be required to pay are likely to exceed $250; or

(2) You have previously failed to pay a fee charged within 30 days of the date of billing.

(n) Upon written request, we may waive or reduce fees that are otherwise chargeable under this part. If you request a waiver or reduction in fees, you must demonstrate that a waiver or reduction in fees is in the public interest because disclosure of the requested records is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in your commercial interest.

(1) In deciding whether disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of operations or activities of the government, the Council shall consider all four of the following factors:

(i) The subject of the request must concern identifiable operations or activities of the Federal Government, with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated.

(ii) Disclosure of the requested records must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities in order to be “likely to contribute” to an increased public understanding of those operations or activities. The disclosure of information that already is in the public domain, in either the same or a substantially identical form, would not contribute to such understanding where nothing new would be added to the public's understanding.

(iii) The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester. A requester's expertise in the subject area as well as the requester's ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public shall be considered. It shall be presumed that a representative of the news media will satisfy this consideration.

(iv) The public's understanding of the subject in question must be enhanced by the disclosure to a significant extent. However, components shall not make value judgments about whether the information at issue is “important” enough to be made public.

(2) To determine whether disclosure of the requested information is primarily in the commercial interest of the requester, the Council shall consider the following factors:

(i) The Council shall identify any commercial interest of the requester, as defined in § 10000.2, that would be furthered by the requested disclosure. Requesters shall be given an opportunity to provide explanatory information regarding this consideration.

(ii) A waiver or reduction of fees is justified where the public interest is greater than any identified commercial interest in disclosure. The Council ordinarily shall presume that where a news media requester has satisfied the public interest standard, the public interest will be the interest primarily served by disclosure to that requester. Disclosure to data brokers or others who merely compile and market government information for direct economic return shall not be presumed to primarily serve the public interest.

(3) Where only some of the records to be released satisfy the requirements for a waiver of fees, a waiver shall be granted for those records.

(4) Requests for a waiver or reduction of fees should be made when the request is first submitted to the component and should address the criteria referenced above. A requester may submit a fee waiver request at a later time so long as the underlying record request is pending or on administrative appeal. When a requester who has committed to pay fees subsequently asks for a waiver of those fees and that waiver is denied, the requester shall be required to pay any costs incurred up to the date the fee waiver request was received.

PART 10001—IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974Sec.10001.1Purpose and scope.10001.2Definitions.10001.3Privacy Act requests.10001.4Responses to Privacy Act requests.10001.5Administrative appeals.10001.6Fees.10001.7Penalties.Authority:

5 U.S.C. 552a.

§ 10001.1 Purpose and scope.

The regulations in this part implement the provisions of the Privacy Act.

§ 10001.2 Definitions.

The following terms used in this part are defined in the Privacy Act: Individual, maintain,record, system of records,statistical record, and routine use. The following definitions also apply in this part:

Chairperson means the Chairperson of the Council, as appointed by the President, or any person to whom the Council has delegated authority for the matter concerned.

Council means the National Council on Disability, established by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 780 et seq.), as amended, and amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (Pub. L. 113-128) in 2014.

General Counsel means the Council's principal legal advisor, or his or her designee.

Privacy Act means the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended.

Privacy Act Officer means the person designated by the Council to be responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Privacy Act, currently delegated to the Council's Management Analyst.

§ 10001.3 Privacy Act requests.

(a) Requests to determine if you are the subject of a record. You may request that the Council inform you if we maintain a system of records that contains records about you. Your request must follow the procedures described in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Requests for access. You may request access to a Council record about you in writing or by appearing in person. You should direct your request to the Privacy Act Officer. Written requests may be sent to: Privacy Act Officer, National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004. Your request should include the following information:

(1) Your name, address, and telephone number;

(2) The system(s) of records in which the requested information is contained; and

(3) At your option, authorization for copying expenses.

(4) Written requests. In addition to the information described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, written requests must include a statement affirming your identity, signed by you and witnessed by two persons (including witnesses' addresses) or notarized.

(i) Witnessed. If your statement is witnessed, it must include a sentence above the witnesses' signatures attesting that they personally know you or that you have provided satisfactory proof of your identity.

(ii) Notarized. If your statement is notarized, you must provide the notary with adequate proof of your identity in the form of a drivers' license, passport, or other identification acceptable to the notary.

(iii) The Council, in its discretion, may require additional proof of identification depending on the nature and sensitivity of the records in the system of records.

(iv) For the quickest possible handling, your letter and envelope should be marked “Privacy Act Request.”

(5) In person requests. In addition to the information described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, if you make your request in person, you must provide adequate proof of identification at the time of your request. Adequate proof of identification includes a valid drivers' license, valid passport, or other current identification that includes your address and photograph.

(c) Requests for amendment or correction of records. You may request an amendment to or correction of a record about you in person or by writing to the Privacy Act Officer following the procedures described in paragraph (b) of this section. Your request for amendment or correction should identify each particular record at issue, state the amendment or correction sought, and describe why the record is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete.

(d) Requests for an accounting of disclosures. Except for those disclosures for which the Privacy Act does not require an accounting, you may request an accounting of any disclosure by the Council of a record about you. Your request for an accounting of disclosures must be made in writing following the procedures described in paragraph (b) of this section.

(e) Requests for access on behalf of someone else. (1) If you are making a request on behalf of someone else, your request must include a statement from that individual verifying his or her identity, as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. Your request also must include a statement certifying that individual's agreement that records about him or her may be released to you.

(2) If you are the parent or guardian of the individual to whom the requested record pertains, or the individual to whom the record pertains has been deemed incompetent by a court, your request for access to records about that individual must include:

(i) The identity of the individual who is the subject of the record, including his or her name, current address, and date and place of birth;

(ii) Verification of your identity in accordance with paragraph (b)(4) of this section;

(iii) Verification that you are the subject's parent or guardian, which may be established by a copy of the subject's birth certificate identifying you as his or her parent, or a court order establishing you as guardian; and

(iv) A statement certifying that you are making the request on the subject's behalf.

§ 10001.4 Responses to Privacy Act requests.

(a) Acknowledgement. The Privacy Act Officer shall provide you with a written acknowledgment of your written request under section 3 within ten business days of our receipt of your request.

(b) Grants of requests. If you make your request in person, the Privacy Act Officer shall respond to your request directly, either by granting you access to the requested records, upon payment of any applicable fee and with a written record of the grant of your request and receipt of the records, or by informing you when a response may be expected. If you are accompanied by another person, you must authorize in writing any discussion of the records in the presence of the third person. If your request is in writing, the Privacy Act Officer shall provide you with written notice of the Council's decision to grant your request and the amount of any applicable fee. The Privacy Act Officer shall disclose the records to you promptly, upon payment of any applicable fee.

(c) Denials of requests in whole or in part. The Privacy Act Officer shall notify you in writing of his or her determination to deny, in whole or in part, your request. This writing shall include the following information:

(1) The name and title or position of the person responsible for the denial;

(2) A brief statement of the reason for the denial(s), including any applicable Privacy Act exemption;

(3) A statement that you may appeal the denial and a brief description of the requirements for appeal under § 10001.5.

(d) Request for records not covered by the Privacy Act or subject to Privacy Act exemption. If the Privacy Act Officer determines that a requested record is not subject to the Privacy Act or the records are subject to Privacy Act exemption, your request will be processed in accordance with the Council's Freedom of Information Act procedures at 5 CFR part 10000.

§ 10001.5 Administrative appeals.

(a) Appeal procedures. (1) You may appeal any decision by the Council to deny, in whole or in part, your request under § 10001.3 no later than 60 days after the decision is rendered.

(2) Your appeal must be in writing, sent to the General Counsel at the address specified in § 10001.3(b) and contain the following information:

(i) Your name;

(ii) Description of the record(s) at issue;

(iii) The system of records in which the record(s) is contained;

(iv) A statement of why your request should be granted.

(3) The General Counsel shall determine whether to uphold or reverse the initial determination within 30 working days of our receipt of your appeal. The General Counsel shall notify you of his or her decision, including a brief statement of the reasons for the decision, in writing. The General Counsel's decision will be the final action of the Council.

(b) Statement of disagreement. If your appeal of our determination related to your request for amendment or correction is denied in whole or in part, you may file a Statement of Disagreement that states the basis for your disagreement with the denial. Statements of Disagreement must be concise and must clearly identify each part of any record that is disputed. The Privacy Act Officer will place your Statement of Disagreement in the system of records in which the disputed record is maintained and shall mark the disputed record to indicate that a Statement of Disagreement has been filed and where it may be found.

(c) Notification of amendment, correction, or disagreement. Within 30 working days of the amendment or correction of a record, the Privacy Act Officer shall notify all persons, organizations, or agencies to which the Council previously disclosed the record, if an accounting of that disclosure was made, that the record has been corrected or amended. If you filed a Statement of Disagreement, the Privacy Act Officer shall append a copy of it to the disputed record whenever it is disclosed and also may append a concise statement of its reason(s) for denying the request to amend or correct the record.

§ 10001.6 Fees.

We will not charge a fee for search or review of records requested under this part, or for the correction of records. If you request copies of records, we may charge a fee of $.10 per page.

§ 10001.7 Penalties.

Any person who makes a false statement in connection with any request for a record or an amendment or correction thereto under this part is subject to the penalties prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 494 and 495 and 5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(3).

PART 10002—IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACTSec.10002.1 Purpose and scope.10002.2 Definitions.10002.3 Open meetings.10002.4 Procedures for public announcement of meetings.10002.5 Grounds on which meetings may be closed or information withheld.10002.6 Procedures for closing meetings or withholding information, and requests by affected persons to close a meeting.10002.7 Changes following public announcement.10002.8 Transcripts, recordings, or minutes of closed meetings.10002.9 Public availability and retention of transcripts, recordings, and minutes, and applicable fees.Authority:

5 U.S.C. 552b.

§ 10002.1 Purpose and scope.

(a) The regulations in this part implement the provisions of the Sunshine Act.

(b) Requests for all records other than those described in § 10002.9, shall be governed by the Council's Freedom of Information Act procedures at 5 CFR part 10001.

§ 10002.2 Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this part:

Chairperson means the Chairperson of the Council, as appointed by the President, or any person to whom the Council has delegated authority for the matter concerned.

Council means the National Council on Disability, established by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 780 et seq.), as amended, and amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (Pub. L. 113-128) in 2014.

General Counsel means the Council's principal legal advisor, or his or her designee.

Meeting means the deliberations of five or more Council members that determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official Council business. A meeting does not include:

(1) Notational voting or similar consideration of business for the purpose of recording votes, whether by circulation of material to members' individually in writing or by a polling of the members individually by phone or email.

(2) Action by five or more members to:

(i) Open or close a meeting or to release or withhold information pursuant to § 10002.6;

(ii) Set an agenda for a proposed meeting;

(iii) Call a meeting on less than seven days' notice, as permitted by § 10002.4; or

(iv) Change the subject matter or the determination to open or to close a publicly announced meeting under § 10002.7.

(3) A session attended by five or more members for the purpose of having the Council's staff or expert consultants, another federal agency, or other persons or organizations brief or otherwise provide information to the Council concerning any matters within the purview of the Council, provided that the members do not engage in deliberations that determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official business on such matters.

(4) A gathering of members for the purpose of holding informal, preliminary discussions or exchanges of views which do not effectively predetermine official action. Member means an individual duly appointed and confirmed to the Council. Public observation means attendance by the public at a meeting of the Council, but does not include public participation.

Public participation means the presentation or discussion of information, raising of questions, or other manner of involvement in a meeting of the Council by the public in a manner that contributes to the disposition of official Council business.

Sunshine Act means the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

§ 10002.3 Open meetings.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this part, every portion of a Council meeting shall be open to public observation.

(b) Council meetings, or portions thereof, shall be open to public participation when an announcement to that effect is published under § 10002.4. Public participation shall be conducted in an orderly, non-disruptive manner and in accordance with any procedures the Chairperson may establish. Public participation may be terminated for good cause as determined by the Council upon the advice of the General Counsel based on unanticipated developments.

§ 10002.4 Procedures for public announcement of meetings.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Council shall make a public announcement at least seven days prior to a meeting. The public announcement shall include:

(1) The time and place of the meeting;

(2) The subject matter of the meeting;

(3) Whether the meeting is to be open, closed, or portions of a meeting will be closed;

(4) Whether public participation will be allowed;

(5) The name and telephone number of the person who will respond to requests for information about the meeting;

(b) The seven-day prior notice required by paragraph (a) of this section may be reduced only if:

(1) A majority of all members determine by recorded vote that Council business requires that such meeting be scheduled in less than seven days; and

(2) The public announcement required by this section is made at the earliest practicable time.

(c) If public notice is provided by means other than publication in the Federal Register, notice will be promptly submitted to the Federal Register for publication.

§ 10002.5 Grounds on which meetings may be closed or information withheld.

A meeting, or portion thereof, may be closed and information pertinent to such meeting withheld if the Council determines that the meeting or release of information is likely to disclose matters that are:

(a) Specifically authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret in the interests of national defense or foreign policy; and, in fact, are properly classified pursuant to such executive order. In making the determination that this exemption applies, the Council shall rely on the classification assigned to the document or assigned to the information from the federal agency from which the document was received.

(b) Related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the Council;

(c) Specifically exempt from disclosure by statute (other than 5 U.S.C. 552), provided that such statute:

(1) Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or

(2) Establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

(d) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

(e) Involved with accusing any person of a crime or formally censuring any person;

(f) Of a personal nature, if disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(g) Either investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes or information which, if written, would be contained in such records, but only to the extent that the production of records or information would:

(1) Interfere with enforcement proceedings;

(2) Deprive a person of a right to either a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;

(3) Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(4) Disclose the identity of a confidential source or sources and, in the case of a record compiled either by a criminal law enforcement authority or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source(s);

(5) Disclose investigative techniques and procedures; or

(6) Endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel;

(h) Contained in or relating to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions;

(i) If prematurely disclosed, likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed action of the Council, except that this subsection shall not apply in any instance where the Council has already disclosed to the public the content or nature of its proposed action or is required by law to make such disclosure on its own initiative prior to taking final action on such proposal; and

(j) Specifically concerned with the Council's issuance of a subpoena, or its participation in a civil action or proceeding, an action in a foreign court or international tribunal, or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or disposition by the Council of a particular case or formal agency adjudication pursuant to the procedures in 5 U.S.C. 554 or otherwise involving a determination on the record after opportunity for a hearing.

§ 10002.6 Procedures for closing meetings or withholding information, and requests by affected persons to close a meeting.

(a) A meeting or portion of a meeting may be closed and information pertaining to a meeting withheld under § 10002.5 only by vote of a majority of members.

(b) A separate vote of the members shall be taken with respect to each meeting or portion of a meeting proposed to be closed and with respect to information which is proposed to be withheld. A single vote may be taken with respect to a series of meetings or portions of a meeting that are proposed to be closed, so long as each meeting or portion thereof in the series involves the same particular matter and is scheduled to be held no more than 30 days after the initial meeting in the series. The vote of each member shall be recorded and no proxies shall be allowed.

(c) A person whose interests may be directly affected by a portion of a meeting may request in writing that the Council close that portion for any of the reasons referred to in § 10002.5(e), (f), and (g). Upon the request of a member, a recorded vote shall be taken whether to close such meeting or portion thereof.

(d) For every meeting closed, the General Counsel shall publicly certify that, in his or her opinion, the meeting may be closed to the public and shall state each relevant basis for closing the meeting. If the General Counsel invokes the bases set forth in § 10002.5(a) or (c), he or she shall rely upon the classification or designation assigned to the information by the originating agency. A copy of such certification, together with a statement by the presiding officer setting forth the time and place of the meeting and the persons present, shall be retained by the Council as part of the transcript, recording, or minutes required by § 10002.8.

§ 10002.7 Changes following public announcement.

(a) The time or place of a meeting may be changed following the public announcement described in § 10002.4. The Council must publicly announce such change at the earliest practicable time.

(b) The subject matter of a meeting or the determination of the Council to open or close a meeting, or a portion thereof, to the public may be changed following public announcement only if:

(1) A majority of all members determine by recorded vote that Council business so requires and that no earlier announcement of the change was possible; and

(2) The Council publicly announces such change and the vote of each member thereon at the earliest practicable time.

§ 10002.8 Transcripts, recordings, or minutes of closed meetings.

Along with the General Counsel's certification and presiding officer's statement referred to in § 10002.6(d), the Council shall maintain a complete transcript or electronic recording adequate to record fully the proceedings of each meeting, or a portion thereof, closed to the public. Alternatively, for any meeting closed pursuant to § 10002.5(h) or (j), the Council may maintain a set of minutes adequate to record fully the proceedings, including a description of each of the views expressed on any item and the record of any roll call vote.

§ 10002.9 Public availability and retention of transcripts, recordings, and minutes, and applicable fees.

(a) The Council shall make available, in a place easily accessible, such as www.ncd.gov, to the public the transcript, electronic recording, or minutes of a meeting, except for items of discussion or testimony related to matters the Council determines may be withheld under § 10002.6.

(b) Copies of the nonexempt portions of the transcripts or minutes shall be provided upon receipt of the actual costs of the transcription or duplication.

(c) The Council shall maintain meeting transcripts, recordings, or minutes of each meeting closed to the public for a period ending at the later of two years following the date of the meeting, or one year after the conclusion of any Council proceeding with respect to the closed meeting.

We are revising an NPRM for SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplaness (type certificate previously held by EADS SOCATA) that was proposed to revise AD 2007-04-13. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks found on the main landing gear cylinders. This action revises the NPRM by including the actions against those airplanes that reach a certain number of landings after the effective date of the AD. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to correct the unsafe condition on these products. Since this action imposes an additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on this proposed change.

For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact SOCATA, Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France; telephone: 33 (0)5 62.41.73.00; fax: 33 (0)5 62.41.76.54; or SOCATA North America, North Perry Airport, 7501 S Airport Rd., Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023, telephone: (954) 893-1400; fax: (954) 964-4141; Internet: http://www.socata.com. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2047.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2047; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-2047; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-013-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

The docket number and the directorate identifier of the NPRM (80 FR 8821, February 19, 2015) is Docket No. FAA-2006-26235; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-065-AD. The NPRM docket number is different than the docket number of this SNPRM. The comment period for the NPRM closed on April 6, 2015; we received one comment in support of the NPRM.

Discussion

We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an NPRM for SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes (type certificate previously held by EADS SOCATA), which was published in the Federal Register on February 19, 2015 (80 FR 8821). The NPRM proposed to require actions intended to address the unsafe condition for the products listed above and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by another country.

Since the NPRM was issued, we have determined that airplanes with MLG with forging body that had not reached 1,750 landings as of March 23, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-04-13) were not affected by the AD. This is not the intent and allows airplanes to fly indefinitely with the unsafe condition. This supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) proposes to make those airplanes with MLG with forging body either at or under 1,750 landings as of March 23, 2007, applicable to the AD in addition to extending the time between the repetitive inspections until a reinforced landing gear is installed, which terminates the repetitive inspections.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

EADS SOCATA has issued TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, ATA No. 32, dated January 2006, and SOCATA has issued DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated December 2014. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. The DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated December 2014, incorporates procedures for replacing cracked MLG with a reinforced MLG as a terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on the SNPRM.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 431 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $109,905, or $255 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $6,000, for a cost of $6,340 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

(1) are not equipped with a left-hand main landing gear (MLG) body part number (P/N) D68161 or D68161-1 and a right-hand MLG body P/N D68162 or D68162-1; and

(2) are certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing gear.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product and the FAA's determination to add additional airplanes to the Applicability section. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the shock strut cylinder of the MLG, which could cause the MLG to fail, and to add airplanes to the Applicability section. Failure of the shock strut cylinder of the MLG could result in a collapsed MLG during takeoff or landing and possible reduced structural integrity of the airplane. We are superseding AD 2007-04-13 to add airplanes to the Applicability section, increase the time between the repetitive inspections, and incorporate a modification to terminate the required repetitive inspections.

(f) Actions and Compliance for Airplanes not Previously Affected by AD 2007-04-13

Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (h) of this AD:

(1) As of March 23, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-04-13), for MLG with forging body that were either at or under 1,750 landings as of March 23, 2007 (the effective date of (AD 2007-04-13): Upon or before accumulating 1,750 landings on the MLG with forging body since new or within the next 100 landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, inspect the forging body for cracks. Do the inspection following the Accomplishment Instructions of EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, dated January 2006, or DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated December 2014.

(2) If no cracks are detected during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, repetitively thereafter inspect at intervals not to exceed 240 landings until a reinforced landing gear specified in paragraph E. Terminating Solution of the Accomplishment Instructions in DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated December 2014, is installed.

(ii) If no cracks are detected during the inspection required in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD, repetitively thereafter inspect at intervals not to exceed 240 landings until a reinforced landing gear specified in paragraph E. Terminating Solution of the Accomplishment Instructions in DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated December 2014, is installed.

(2) As of March 23, 2007 (the effective date retained from AD 2007-04-13), for MLG with forging body totaling more than 3,500 landings since new:

(ii) If no cracks are detected during the inspection required in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD, repetitively thereafter inspect at intervals not to exceed 240 landings until a reinforced landing gear specified in paragraph E. Terminating Solution of the Accomplishment Instructions in DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated December 2014, is installed.

(h) Actions and Compliance for All Affected Airplanes

If any cracks are detected during any inspection required in paragraphs (f)(1) through (g)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs:

(1) Before further flight, remove the affected landing gear leg and confirm the presence of the crack with dye penetrant inspection or fluorescent penetrant inspection.

(2) If the crack is confirmed, before further flight, contact SOCATA at the address in paragraph (k) of this AD to coordinate the FAA-approved landing gear repair/replacement and implement any FAA-approved repair/replacement instructions obtained from SOCATA, or replace the cracked landing gear with a reinforced landing gear specified in paragraph E. Terminating Solution of the Accomplishment Instructions in DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated December 2014. This replacement terminates the repetitive inspections required by this AD.

(i) Calculating Unknown Number of Landings for Compliance

The compliance times of this AD are presented in landings instead of hours time-in-service (TIS). If the number of landings is unknown, hours TIS may be used by dividing the number of hours TIS by 1.35.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4119; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: albert.mercado@faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

This document contains proposed amendments to the consolidated return regulations. These amendments would revise the rules concerning the use of a consolidated group's losses in a consolidated return year in which stock of a subsidiary is disposed of. The regulations would affect corporations filing consolidated returns.

DATES:

Written or electronic comments, and a request for a public hearing, must be received by September 9, 2015.

This document contains proposed amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under section 1502 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Section 1502 authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations for corporations that join in filing consolidated returns to reflect clearly the income tax liability of the group and to prevent avoidance of such tax liability, and provides that these rules may be different from the provisions of chapter 1 of subtitle A of the Code that would apply if the corporations filed separate returns. Terms used in the consolidated return regulations generally are defined in § 1.1502-1.

These proposed regulations would provide guidance regarding the absorption of members' losses in a consolidated return year, and provide guidance to eliminate the “circular basis problem” in a broader class of transactions than under current law.

This document also contains proposed conforming amendments to 26 CFR part 301 under section 6402. Section 6402 authorizes the Secretary to make credits and refunds. The proposed regulations would amend § 301.6402-7(g) (relating to claims for refunds and application for tentative carryback adjustments involving consolidated groups that include financial institutions) by revising the definition of separate net operating loss of a member in light of the proposed amendments to § 1.1502-21 (relating to the determination and treatment of consolidated and separate net operating losses, carrybacks, and carryovers).

2. Allocation and Absorption of Members' Losses

In general, the consolidated taxable income (CTI) or consolidated net operating loss (CNOL) of a consolidated group is the sum of each member's separately computed taxable income or loss (computed pursuant to § 1.1502-12) and certain items of income and deduction that are computed on a consolidated basis pursuant to § 1.1502-11.

Section 1.1502-21(b)(2)(i) (relating to carryovers and carrybacks of CNOLs to separate return years) provides generally that if a group has a CNOL and a portion of the CNOL would be carried to a member's separate return year, the CNOL must be apportioned between the group and the member (or members) with the separate return year(s) in accordance with the amount of the CNOL attributable to those member(s). For this purpose, § 1.1502-21(b)(2)(iv) employs a fraction to determine the percentage amount of the CNOL attributable to a member. The numerator of the fraction is the separate net operating loss of the member for the consolidated return year, and the denominator is the sum of the separate net operating losses of all members for that year. For this purpose, the separate net operating loss of a member is determined by computing the CNOL, taking into account only the member's items of income, gain, deduction, and loss. Although the current consolidated return regulations provide rules for apportioning a CNOL among members when a member's loss may be carried to a separate return year, the regulations do not expressly adopt the fraction-based methodology of § 1.1502-21(b)(2)(iv) for computing the amount of each member's absorbed loss that is used to offset the income of members with positive separate taxable income or net capital gain for the consolidated return year in which the loss is recognized.

Furthermore, although the method provided for apportioning a CNOL under current law generally yields appropriate results, the apportionment may produce anomalies if capital gains are present. For example, assume a stand-alone corporation, P, acquires the stock of corporation S, and P and S file a consolidated return for the first taxable year of P ending after the acquisition. For the consolidated return year, P generates $100 of capital gain and incurs $100 of deductible expenses. S incurs a $100 capital loss. Thus, the group has a $100 CNOL. Under current law, the percentage of the CNOL attributable to each member is determined by its relative separate net operating loss, taking into account only its items. The CNOL that the group would have if only P's items were taken into account is zero ($100 of capital gain offset by $100 of deductible expenses). If only S's items were taken into account the group would have a consolidated net capital loss, but the CNOL would also be zero. Accordingly, because neither P nor S has a separate net operating loss, the allocation of the group's $100 CNOL is not clear.

Both to provide an absorption rule for apportioning ordinary and capital losses incurred in the same consolidated return year, and to address the CNOL apportionment issue, the proposed regulations would amend the current regulations in the following two ways. First, the proposed regulations add a new paragraph (e) to § 1.1502-11 to clarify that the absorption of members' losses to offset income of other members in the consolidated return year is made on a pro rata basis, consistent with the pro rata absorption of losses from taxable years ending on the same date that are carried back or forward under the rules of §§ 1.1502-21(b) and 1.1502-22(b) (relating to net capital loss carrybacks and carryovers). Second, to address apportionment anomalies that may arise if capital gains are present, the proposed regulations would provide that the separate net operating loss of a member, solely for apportionment purposes, is its loss determined without regard to capital gains (or losses) or amounts treated as capital gains. Thus, in the example in the preceding paragraph, P would be allocated the entire $100 CNOL. Excluding capital gains and losses from the computation is consistent with excluding capital gains and losses in determining a member's separate taxable income under § 1.1502-12, and taking capital gains and losses into account on a group, rather than a separate member, basis. A conforming amendment is made to § 301.6402-7(g)(2)(ii) (relating to refunds to certain statutory or court-appointed fiduciaries of an insolvent financial institution), which contains a similar allocation rule.

3. Circular Adjustments to BasisA. The Circular Basis Problem and Current Regulations

To prevent the income, gain, deduction, or loss of a subsidiary from being reflected more than once in a consolidated group's income, the consolidated return regulations adjust an owning member's basis in a subsidiary's stock to reflect those items. As a group takes into account a subsidiary's items of income or gain, an owning member's basis in the subsidiary's stock increases. Likewise, as a group absorbs a subsidiary's deductions or losses, an owning member's basis in the subsidiary's stock decreases. These adjustments take place under what is generally referred to as the investment adjustment system. See § 1.1502-32.

If a group absorbs a portion of a subsidiary's loss in the same consolidated return year in which an owning member disposes of that subsidiary's stock, the owning member's basis in the subsidiary's stock is reduced immediately before the disposition. Consequently, the amount of the owning member's gain or loss on the disposition may be affected. Any change in the amount of gain or loss resulting from the disposition may in turn affect the amount of the subsidiary's loss that the group absorbs. Any further absorption of the subsidiary's loss triggers further adjustments to the basis in the subsidiary's stock. These iterative computations, which may completely eliminate the benefit of the disposed of member's losses, are referred to as the circular basis problem.

For example, assume P owns all the stock of S, and the group has a $100 consolidated net capital loss carryover, all of which is attributable to S. On December 31, P sells all of S's stock to a nonmember at a $10 gain. Absent the current rules in § 1.1502-11(b), P's $10 capital gain on the sale of S's stock would be offset by $10 of the consolidated net capital loss carryover (all of which is attributable to S). The use of the loss would cause P's basis in S's stock to be reduced by $10 (immediately before the sale), causing P to recognize $20 of gain on the sale of S's stock. Similarly, that $20 gain would be offset by $20 of S's consolidated net capital loss carryover, and so on, until the entire consolidated net capital loss carryover was depleted. At the end of these iterative calculations, the group would still report $10 of consolidated net capital gain. The current regulations prevent this result.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have considered a variety of approaches to the circular basis problem since the introduction of the investment adjustment system in 1966. The options considered, and either rejected or adopted in regulations to date, appear to have been motivated by differing views concerning the scope and severity of the circular basis problem. The circumstances in which the consolidated return regulations have provided relief to date have been limited to preventing the disposed of subsidiary's loss absorption from affecting the gain or loss recognized on the sale of that subsidiary. This is the case notwithstanding that many commentators have criticized the scope of relief as being too narrow, and have maintained that relief should be extended to, for example, the sales of brother-sister subsidiaries within the same consolidated return year.

Regulations promulgated in 1966 provided no relief from the circular basis problem, even though some relief was initially proposed. Section 1.1502-11(b), published in 1972, provided some relief from the circular basis problem, and those regulations were revised in 1994 into their current form (the circular basis rules).

To resolve the circular basis problem, the circular basis rules require that a tentative computation of CTI be made without taking into account any gain or loss on the disposition of a subsidiary's stock. The amount of the subsidiary's losses that would be absorbed under the tentative computation becomes a limitation on that subsidiary's losses that may be absorbed in the consolidated return year of disposition or as a carryback to a prior year. The limitation is intended to eliminate the circular basis adjustments to the subsidiary's stock and thus prevent iterative computations.

For example, assume a consolidated group consists of P, the common parent, and S, its wholly owned subsidiary, and neither P nor S had income or gain in a prior year. At the beginning of the consolidated return year, P has a $500 basis in S's stock. P sells S's stock for $520 at the end of the year. For the year, P has $30 of ordinary income (determined without taking into account P's gain or loss on the disposition of S's stock) and S has $80 of ordinary loss. To determine the limitation on the amount of S's loss that the group may use during the consolidated return year or as a carryback to a prior year, CTI is tentatively determined without taking into account P's gain or loss on the disposition of S's stock. Accordingly, the use of S's loss in the consolidated return year of disposition is limited to $30. The group is tentatively treated as having a CNOL of $50 (P's $30 of income minus S's $80 loss). The absorption of $30 of S's loss reduces P's basis in S's stock to $470, and results in $50 [$520—($500-$30)] of gain to P on the disposition. Thus, iterative computations are avoided.

Nevertheless, the circular basis rules do not prevent iterative computations in all cases—not even all cases in which the stock of a single subsidiary with a loss is disposed of. For example, if a member other than the disposed of subsidiary also has a loss, and the sum of the losses of the disposed subsidiary and the other member exceeds the income of the group (without regard to gain on the disposed subsidiary's stock) a tentative computation applying a pro rata rule for absorption establishes a limitation on the use of the disposed of subsidiary's loss. That amount will be used to reduce the owning member's basis in the subsidiary's stock and determine the gain or loss on the stock disposition. If the stock disposition results in gain, that gain will be taken into account in an actual computation of CTI. If the sum of the other member's loss and the disposed of subsidiary's limited loss still exceeds the income and gain of other members, the pro rata absorption rule will be applied again. That computation will result in a lower amount for the absorption of the disposed of subsidiary's loss, which will be different than the amount by which the owning member's stock basis was reduced. Accordingly, iterative computations would be required.

To illustrate, assume a consolidated group consists of P, the common parent, and its wholly owned subsidiaries, S1 and S2. At the beginning of the consolidated return year, P has a $500 basis in S1's stock. P sells all of its S1 stock for $500 at the end of the year. For the year, P has a $60 capital gain (determined without taking into account P's gain or loss on the disposition of S1's stock), S1 has a $40 net capital loss and S2 has an $80 net capital loss. To determine the limitation on the amount of S1's capital loss that the group may use during the consolidated return year, CTI is tentatively determined without taking into account gain or loss on the disposition of S1's stock, but with regard to S2's net capital loss. Because S2 has an $80 net capital loss in addition to S1's $40 net capital loss, $40 of S2's loss [$60 × ($80/$120)] and $20 of S1's loss [$60 × ($40/$120)] will be used (assuming pro rata absorption of losses as described in section 2 of the Explanation of Provisions of this preamble). Accordingly, the group's use of S1's loss is limited to $20. Thus, P's basis in S1's stock is reduced by $20 before P disposes of the stock. Therefore, P is assumed to recognize $20 [$500-($500-$20)] of gain on the disposition of its S1 stock, which leaves P with a total capital gain for the year of $80. Again, because S2 has an $80 loss in addition to S1's $20 usable loss, a pro rata portion of each subsidiary's losses will be absorbed in computing the P group's CTI. Assuming pro rata absorption of losses, P's $80 capital gain is offset with $16 of S1's capital loss [$80 × ($20/$100)]. This amount, however, is less than the $20 amount determined in the tentative computation by which P's basis in S1's stock was reduced. Thus, iterative computations would be required.

In considering the circular basis problem, the Treasury Department and the IRS have become aware that taxpayers have taken a broad range of approaches in cases in which the circular basis problem persists. Some taxpayers may undertake many iterative computations while, under similar facts, others will undertake few. Some commentators have suggested using simultaneous equations. That method can produce appropriate results in the simplest fact patterns, but becomes highly complex if both ordinary income and capital gains are present, or if the stock of more than one subsidiary is sold.

One approach that the Treasury Department and IRS considered but did not adopt in these proposed regulations was to disallow the absorption of any losses of a subsidiary in the year of disposition. Such a rule would have an adverse impact on any consolidated group with ordinary income that otherwise would be offset by the subsidiary's losses. Furthermore, a blanket prohibition on the use of a subsidiary's losses would be inappropriately harsh if a subsidiary's stock was sold at a loss and the unified loss rules required a stock basis reduction that was greater than the amount of S's loss. In such a case, the use of S's loss to offset income of other members allowed under current law reduces CTI, but the basis reduction that results from the absorption of the loss has no net effect on the owning member's basis in the subsidiary's stock. Prohibiting the use of the disposed of subsidiary's losses would simply increase the group's CTI.

The Treasury Department and IRS also considered but did not adopt an approach similar to the current rules that would compute a tentative amount of S's losses, and then require a reduction to P's basis in S's stock, regardless of whether S's losses were actually absorbed. This approach could lead to non-economic consequences when another subsidiary's losses are actually absorbed instead of S's according to the general rules of the Code and regulations, but S's losses are nonetheless treated as absorbed for purposes of reducing P's basis in S's stock.

A third approach that the Treasury Department and IRS considered but did not adopt was to turn-off the investment adjustment rules for losses of a subsidiary used in the year of disposition. Such an approach would allow a double deduction and undermine a bedrock principle of consolidated returns as articulated by the Supreme Court in Charles Ilfeld Co. v. Hernandez, 292 U.S. 62 (1934).

B. Proposed Circular Basis Rulesi. In General

The proposed regulations would provide relief and certainty to cases in which the circular basis problem persists, yet adhere to underlying consolidated return concepts without undue complexity. To prevent iterative computations for a consolidated return year in which the stock of one or more subsidiaries is disposed of, these proposed regulations require a group to first determine the amount of each disposed subsidiary's loss that will be absorbed by computing CTI without regard to gain or loss on the disposition of the stock of any subsidiary (the absorbed amount). Once the amount of a subsidiary's absorbed loss is determined under that computation, the absorbed amount for each disposed of subsidiary is not redetermined. Determining each disposed of subsidiary's absorbed amount establishes an immutable number that will also be the amount of reduction to the basis of S's stock taken into account in computing the owning member's gain or loss on the disposition of S's stock. After the absorbed amount is determined, the owning member's basis of the S stock is adjusted under § 1.1502-32 (and § 1.1502-36 as relevant). The actual computation of CTI can then be made, taking into account losses of each disposed of subsidiary equal to that amount. In some cases, however, applying the generally applicable rules of the Code and regulations would result in less than all of a disposed of subsidiary's absorbed amount being used.

For example, assume S has an ordinary loss of $100 and P has capital gain net income of $100 (unrelated to its disposition of S stock), then S's absorbed amount would be determined to be $100. If after taking into account S's $100 absorbed amount P would have a $100 capital loss on a sale of S's stock, P's capital loss on its S stock would offset P's $100 capital gain, and S's ordinary loss would not be used in that year and would become a CNOL carryover (assuming no ability to carry back the loss). If an amount of S's losses equal to its absorbed amount were not used, P's basis in its S stock would not be reduced by the absorbed amount, and the amount of P's loss on S's stock would be changed.

The proposed regulations prevent such a result by providing for an alternative four-step computation of CTI if, applying the general ordering rules of the Code and regulations, less than all of a disposed of subsidiary's absorbed amount would be used. See Examples 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of § 1.1502-11(b)(2)(vi) as proposed herein.

Under the first step, any income, gain, or loss on any share of subsidiary stock is excluded from the computation of CTI and the group uses losses of each disposed of subsidiary equal in both amount and character and from the same taxable years as those used in the computation of its absorbed amount. Thus, by excluding any income, gain, or loss on a stock disposition, and by giving priority to the losses of all disposed of subsidiaries, the proposed regulations would solve the circularity problem.

Under the second step, a disposing member offsets its gain on subsidiary stock with its losses on subsidiary stock (determined after applying § 1.1502-36 (b) and (c), and so much of § 1.1502-36(d) as is necessary to give effect to an election actually made under § 1.1502-36(d)(6)). If the disposing member has net income or gain on the subsidiary stock, and if the disposing member also has a loss of the same character (determined without regard to the stock net income or gain), the disposing member's loss is used to offset the net income or gain on the subsidiary stock to the extent of such income or gain. Any remaining net income or gain is added to the group's remaining income or gain as determined under the first step. Giving priority to S's losses ahead of other members' losses and excluding gain or loss on subsidiary stock are departures from the general rules that require a member to net its income and gain with its own losses before those amounts are combined in a consolidated computation. These departures may distort the amount of absorbed losses of a disposing member relative to the absorbed losses of other members. Thus, in order to put losses of a disposing member (unrelated to its loss on a stock disposition) on a par with losses of other members, the proposed regulations allow P's losses to offset the group's income before other members, but only to the extent of the gain (or income) on the disposed of subsidiary's stock.

Under the third step if, after the application of the second step of the alternative computation, the group has remaining income or gain and a disposing member has a net loss on subsidiary stock (determined after applying § 1.1502-36 (b) and (c), and so much of § 1.1502-36(d) as is necessary to give effect to an election actually made under § 1.1502-36(d)(6)), that income or gain is then offset by the loss on the disposition of subsidiary stock, subject to generally applicable rules of the Code and regulations. The amount of the offset, however, is limited to the lesser of the total remaining ordinary income or capital gain of the group (determined after the application of the second step) or the amount of the disposing member's ordinary income or capital gain (determined without regard to the stock loss).

Finally, under the fourth step, if the group has remaining income or gain, the unused losses of all members are applied on a pro rata basis.

The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that the special rules in these proposed regulations may in certain cases alter the general rule under section 1211(a) that allows the deduction of losses from the sale or exchange of capital assets to the extent of capital gains. However, giving priority to the absorption of a disposed subsidiary's losses will prevent the need for iterative computations.

The Treasury Department and the IRS also recognize that the proposed regulations may increase the number of cases in which the general ordering rules for the absorption of members' losses will be altered and may in certain cases result in more gain (or less loss) on the sale of a subsidiary's stock than under current law. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the benefits derived from the certainty that the proposed rules achieve generally outweigh the potential detriments of these deviations from the general rules. Comments are requested on whether there are alternative approaches that would both eliminate the circular basis problem and preserve the general rule for the absorption of capital and ordinary losses.

ii. Higher-Tier Subsidiaries

Under § 1.1502-11(b)(4)(ii) of the current regulations, if S is a higher-tier subsidiary of another subsidiary (T), the use of T's losses is subject to the circular basis rules upon a disposition of S's stock, but only if 100 percent of T's items of income, gain, deduction, and loss would be reflected in the basis of S's stock in the hands of the owning member (100-percent requirement). If another member of S's consolidated group or a nonmember owns any stock of either S or T, the circular basis rules do not apply.

These proposed regulations would remove the 100-percent requirement. Thus, if any stock of a higher-tier subsidiary is disposed of, the absorption of losses of a lower-tier subsidiary is subject to the proposed circular basis rules by treating the lower-tier subsidiary as if its stock had been disposed of. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments regarding whether, and under what circumstances, the 100-percent requirement should be retained.

C. Other Provisions

Ordinary income and deductions are generally taken into account on a separate company basis before the computation of CTI occurs. A member's separate taxable income under § 1.1502-12 is computed in accordance with the provisions of the Code subject to certain modifications. These modifications generally relate to items that are determined on a consolidated basis (for example, the use of capital losses and the limitation on charitable contribution deductions). Although gain or loss on the disposition of a subsidiary's stock is usually capital, a worthless stock deduction could be ordinary if the conditions of section 165(g)(3) are satisfied. In addition, a gain on the disposition of such stock can be ordinary if the recapture rules of section 1017(d) apply. Under these proposed regulations, gain and loss on the disposition of subsidiary stock are disregarded in determining the subsidiary's absorbed amount, and in an alternative computation of CTI. Consequently, if stock of a subsidiary is disposed of, these proposed regulations may require a departure from the general rules for the computation of an owning member's separate taxable income. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that this departure from the general rules is necessary to avoid iterative computations and request comments as to whether an alternative methodology would be preferable.

These proposed regulations clarify the interaction of the Unified Loss Rule of § 1.1502-36 with the circular basis rules. Adjustments under § 1.1502-36 (b), (c), and (d)(6) (if an election is made to reattribute losses or reduce stock basis) will affect the computation of CTI. Therefore, these proposed regulations contain guidance as to the point in the computation that those adjustments are made.

The proposed regulations also contain a rule to prevent iterative computations in determining the amount of deductions that are determined by reference to or are limited by the group's CTI, for example, the consolidated charitable contributions deduction under § 1.1502-24 and a member's percentage depletion deduction with respect to oil or gas property for independent producers and royalty owners under § 1.1502-44. The amount of those deductions is taken into account in determining the group's CTI and may affect the computation of a disposed of subsidiary's absorbed amount. The absorbed amount will reduce the stock basis and affect the amount of gain or loss on the disposition of the subsidiary's stock, which will change the amount of CTI, and thus the amount of the group's deduction. To prevent these iterative computations, the proposed regulations provide that the amount of those deductions is determined without regard to gain or loss on the disposition of a subsidiary's stock.

As a result of the later addition of § 1.1502-11(c), current § 1.1502-11(b) does not apply if a member realizes discharge of indebtedness income that is excluded from gross income under section 108(a). The rules applicable in that case, contained in paragraph (c) of § 1.1502-11, are generally not addressed by these proposed regulations, but to the extent that paragraph (c) uses the absorbed amount described in § 1.1502-11(b)(2) as a starting point, the computation will be affected. Comments are requested regarding appropriate additional changes to § 1.1502-11(c).

Finally, the proposed regulations include modifications to §§ 1.1502-11(a), 1.1502-12, 1.1502-22(a), and 1.1502-24 of the current regulations and removal of §§ 1.1502-21A, 1.1502-22A and 1.1502-23A. These modifications are not changes to current substantive law; they are intended solely to update the regulations to reflect certain statutory changes and remove cross-references to outdated regulatory provisions.

Proposed Effective Date

These regulations are proposed to be effective for consolidated return years beginning on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.

Special Analyses

It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. These proposed regulations would not impose a collection of information on small entities. Further, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that these proposed regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these proposed regulations would primarily affect members of consolidated groups that tend to be large corporations. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing

Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original with eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed regulations.

All comments will be available for public inspection and copying at www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing may be scheduled if requested by any person that timely submits comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

Drafting Information

The principal author of these regulations is Robert M. Rhyne, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

(b) Elimination of circular basis adjustments if there is no excluded COD income—(1) In general. If a member (P) disposes of a share of stock of one or more subsidiaries (S), this paragraph (b) applies to determine the amount of S's losses that will be used in the consolidated return year of disposition and in a carryback year. The purpose of these rules is to prevent P's income, gain, deduction, or loss from the disposition of a share of S's stock from affecting the amount of S's deductions and losses that are absorbed. A change to the amount of S's absorbed losses would affect P's basis in S's stock under § 1.1502-32, which in turn affects P's gain or loss on the disposition of S's stock. For purposes of this section, P is treated as disposing of a share of a subsidiary's stock if any event described in § 1.1502-19(c) occurs or, if for any reason, a member recognizes gain or loss (including an excess loss account included in income) with respect to the share. However, to the extent income, gain, deduction, or loss from a disposition of a share of S's stock is deferred under any rule of law (for example, § 1.1502-13 and section 267(f)), the taxable year in which the deferred amount is taken into account is treated as the taxable year of disposition. This paragraph (b) does not apply if any member realizes discharge of indebtedness income that is excluded from gross income under section 108(a) during the consolidated return year of the disposition. If a member realizes such income, see paragraph (c) of this section. For purposes of this section, S's ordinary loss means its separate net operating loss (as defined in § 1.1502-21(b)(2)(iv)(B)). Solely for purposes of this section, any reference to a member's capital gain includes amounts treated as capital gain. Furthermore, for those purposes, a member's capital loss means a consolidated net capital loss determined by reference to only that member's capital gain and capital loss items.

(2) Deductions and losses of disposed subsidiaries—(i) Determination of absorbed amounts. If P disposes of a share of S's stock in a transaction to which this paragraph (b) applies, the extent to which S's ordinary loss and capital loss (including losses carried over from a prior year) that are absorbed in the consolidated return year of the disposition or in a prior year as a carryback (the absorbed amount) is determined under this paragraph (b)(2). S's absorbed amount is the amount that would be absorbed in a computation of the group's consolidated taxable income (CTI) for the consolidated return year of the disposition (and any taxable year to which losses may be carried back) without taking into account any member's income, gain, deduction, or loss from the disposition of any share of any subsidiary's stock in that year. S's absorbed amount is determined after first applying other applicable limitations and ordering rules (for example, limitations imposed by section 382(a) and § 1.1502-21 and the ordering rules of section 382(l)(2)) to S's deductions and losses. Any election that the group makes on its actual return for the consolidated return year (for example, an election to relinquish a carryback under § 1.1502-21(b)(3)) must be used in this computation. Once S's absorbed amount is determined, that amount is not redetermined. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(1) of this section, the amount determined under this paragraph (b)(2)(i) fixes only the amount of S's losses that will be absorbed. Thus, under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) of this section, the character of the losses that are absorbed in the actual computation of the group's CTI for the year (or as a carryback to a prior year) may not be the same as the character of the losses that are absorbed in determining the absorbed amount. However, if the alternative computation of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(1) of this section is required, the character of the absorbed amount as determined under this paragraph (b)(2)(i) is retained.

(ii) Stock basis reduction and gain or loss on disposition. After the determination of S's absorbed amount, P reduces its basis in S's stock under the investment adjustment rules of § 1.1502-32(b)(2) by the absorbed amount. If any share is a loss share, P then adjusts its basis in S's stock by applying paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 1.1502-36, and, if an election is actually made under § 1.1502-36(d)(6), by applying § 1.1502-36(d) to the extent necessary to give effect to the election. P then computes its gain or loss on the disposed of shares after taking into account those adjustments.

(iii) Actual computation of CTI—(A) In general. The group's CTI and any carryback of a portion of a CNOL are determined under applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and regulations, taking into account gain or loss on any subsidiary's stock, and taking into account losses of disposed of subsidiaries equal to each such subsidiary's absorbed amount.

(B) Alternative computation. If the computation of the group's CTI under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) of this section would result in an absorption of less than all of any disposed of subsidiary's absorbed amount, then the group's CTI is computed by applying the following steps, rather than the computation under that paragraph:

(1) First, losses of each disposed of subsidiary equal in both amount and character and from the same taxable years as losses used in the computation of its absorbed amount under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section offset income and gain of other members without taking into account any gain or loss on any share of subsidiary stock and without regard to net losses of other members.

(2) Second, a disposing member offsets its gain on subsidiary stock with its losses on subsidiary stock of the same character. For this purpose, a loss on subsidiary stock is determined after applying § 1.1502-36 (b) and (c), and so much of § 1.1502-36(d) as is necessary to give effect to an election actually made under § 1.1502-36(d)(6). If the disposing member has net income or gain on subsidiary stock, and if the member also has a loss of the same character (determined without regard to the net income, gain, deduction or loss on subsidiary stock), the loss offsets that net income or gain and any remaining income or gain is added to the amount determined after the application of paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B)(1) of this section. For example, if P has a net capital loss on portfolio stock, that net loss is not taken into account in applying paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(1). However, under this paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(2), that net capital loss is absorbed to the extent of that member's net capital gain on subsidiary stock.

(3) Third, if, after the application of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(2) of this section, the group has remaining income or gain and a disposing member has a net loss on subsidiary stock (determined after applying § 1.1502-36(b) and (c), and so much of § 1.1502-36(d) as is necessary to give effect to an election actually made under § 1.1502-36(d)(6)), that remaining income or gain is then offset by a loss on the disposition of subsidiary stock, subject to the applicable rules of the Code and regulations. The amount of the offset, however, is limited to the lesser of the total remaining ordinary income or capital gain of the group (determined after the application of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(2) of this section), or the amount of the disposing member's ordinary income or capital gain of the same character (determined without regard to the stock loss). If the preceding sentence applies to more than one disposing member, and the sum of the amounts determined under that sentence exceeds the group's remaining ordinary or capital gain, the amounts offset capital gain or ordinary income on a pro rata basis under the principles of paragraph (e) of this section.

(4) Fourth, if, after application of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(3) of this section, the group has remaining ordinary income or capital gain, those amounts are offset by the unused losses of all members on a pro rata basis under paragraph (e) of this section.

(C) Priority of rules. The computation of CTI under this paragraph (b)(2)(iii) applies notwithstanding other rules for the absorption of a portion of a member's current year loss, such as paragraphs (a) and (e) of this section, §§ 1.1502-12 and 1.1502-22(a), and the absorption of a member's portion of a CNOL or consolidated net capital loss carryover from a prior year under §§ 1.1502-21(b) and 1.1502-22(b), respectively. For example, in some circumstances, an ordinary loss of a disposed of subsidiary may offset capital gain of another member notwithstanding that under general rules a capital loss of another member would be allowed to the extent of capital gains before an ordinary loss is taken into account. Similarly, an ordinary loss with respect to a subsidiary's stock, which would generally offset ordinary income of the owning member and be included in determining that member's separate taxable income, may become a loss carryover if use of that loss would cause less than all of a disposed of subsidiary's absorbed amount to be used.

(D) Deductions determined by reference to CTI. In the case of any deduction of any member that is determined by reference to or limited by the amount of CTI (for example, a charitable contribution deduction under § 1.1502-24(c) and a percentage depletion deduction under § 1.1502-44(b)), the amount of the deduction is determined without regard to any gain or loss on subsidiary stock.

(iv) Losses not absorbed. To the extent S's losses in the consolidated return year of the disposition of its stock do not offset income or gain by reason of the rules of this paragraph (b), S ceases to be a member, and S's losses are not reattributed under § 1.1502-36(d)(6), the losses are carried over to its separate return years (if any) under the applicable principles of the Code and regulations thereunder. Those losses are not taken into account in determining the percentage of CNOL or consolidated net capital loss attributable to members under § 1.1502-21(b)(2)(iv) or § 1.1502-22(b)(3), respectively. If S remains a member, its unused losses are included in the CNOL or consolidated net capital loss carryovers and are subject to the allocation rules of those sections.

(v) Disposition of stock of a higher-tier subsidiary. If a subsidiary (T) is a lower-tier subsidiary (as described in § 1.1502-36(f)(4)) of a higher-tier subsidiary (S), and S's stock is disposed of during a consolidated return year, T's losses are subject to this paragraph (b) as if T's stock had been disposed of. Thus, T's absorbed amount is determined by disregarding any gain or loss (for example, an excess loss account taken into account under § 1.1502-19(b)) on a deemed disposition of T's stock as provided under this paragraph (b), as well as any gain or loss on the disposition of a share of any other subsidiary's stock.

(vi) Examples. For purposes of the examples in this paragraph (b)(2)(vi), unless otherwise stated, P is the common parent of a calendar-year consolidated group and owns all of the only class of stock of subsidiaries S, S1, S2, M, M1, and M2 for the entire year; S, S1, S2, M, M1, M2, and T own no stock of lower-tier subsidiaries; all persons use the accrual method of accounting; the facts set forth the only corporate activity; all transactions are between unrelated persons; tax liabilities are disregarded; and § 1.1502-36 will not cause P to adjust its basis in S's stock immediately before a disposition. The rules of this paragraph (b)(2) are illustrated by the following examples:

Example 1.

Absorption of disposed of subsidiary's losses. (i) Facts. P has a $500 basis in S's stock. P sells S's stock for $520 at the close of Year 1. For Year 1, P has ordinary income of $30 (determined without taking into account P's gain or loss from the disposition of S's stock) and S an $80 ordinary loss.

(ii) Determination of absorbed amount. To determine S's absorbed amount and the effect of the absorption of its losses under § 1.1502-32(b)(2) on P's basis in S's stock, the group's taxable income is computed without taking into account P's gain or loss from the disposition of S's stock. The P group is treated as having a CNOL of $50 (P's $30 of income minus S's $80 separate net operating loss). Accordingly, S's absorbed amount determined under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section is $30.

(iii) Loss absorption and basis reduction. Under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, P's basis in S's stock is reduced by S's $30 absorbed amount from $500 to $470 immediately before the disposition. Consequently, P recognizes a $50 gain from the sale of S's stock, and the P group has CTI of $50 for Year 1 (P's $30 of ordinary income plus its $50 of gain from the sale of S's stock, minus $30 of S's ordinary loss equal to its absorbed amount). In addition, S's $50 of unabsorbed loss is carried to S's first separate return year.

Example 2.

Carrybacks and carryovers. (i) Facts. For Year 1, the P group has CTI of $30 (all of which is attributable to P) and a consolidated net capital loss of $100 ($50 attributable to P and $50 to S), which cannot be carried back. At the beginning of Year 2, P has a $300 basis in S's stock. P sells S's stock for $280 at the close of Year 2. For Year 2, P has ordinary income of $30, and a $20 capital gain (determined without taking into account the consolidated net capital loss carryover from Year 1 or P's gain or loss from the disposition of S's stock), and S has a $100 ordinary loss.

(ii) Determination of absorbed amount. To determine S's absorbed amount and the effect of the absorption of its losses under § 1.1502-32(b)(2) on P's basis in S's stock, the group's taxable income for Year 2 is computed without taking into account P's gain or loss from the disposition of S's stock. Under section 1212(a)(1)(B), P's $20 capital gain for Year 2 would be offset by $20 of the group's consolidated capital loss carryover from Year 1 ($10 attributable to P and $10 attributable to S). P's $30 of ordinary income in Year 2 would be offset by $30 of S's $100 ordinary loss in that year. P's $30 of ordinary income in Year 1 would be offset by a $30 CNOL carryback from Year 2, all of which is attributable to S. Accordingly, S's absorbed amount under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section is $70 ($10 of S's portion of the consolidated capital loss carryover from Year 1 plus $60 of S's loss from Year 2).

(iii) Loss absorption and basis reduction. Under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, P's basis in S's stock is reduced by S's $70 absorbed amount from $300 to $230, immediately before the disposition, resulting in $50 of capital gain to P from the sale of S's stock for $280 in Year 2. Thus, for Year 2 P will have $70 of capital gain ($50 from the stock sale plus $20 from its other capital gain for that year), which will be offset by $70 of the consolidated capital loss carryover from Year 1, $35 of which is attributable to P and $35 of which is attributable to S. Another $30 of S's ordinary loss offsets P's $30 of ordinary income in Year 2. An amount of S's ordinary loss equal to its remaining $5 absorbed amount may be carried back to Year 1 to offset $5 of the group's CTI in that year. P will have a $15 ($50−$35) capital loss carryover from Year 1, and S will carry over a $15 ($50−$35) capital loss from Year 1 and a $65 ($100−$35) NOL to its first separate return year.

Example 3.

Chain of subsidiaries. (i) Facts. P has a $500 basis in the stock of S and S has a $500 basis in the stock of T, its wholly owned subsidiary. P sells all of its S stock for $520 at the close of Year 1. For Year 1, P has ordinary income of $30, S has no income or loss, and T has an $80 ordinary loss.

(ii) Determination of absorbed amount, basis reduction, and loss absorption. Under § 1.1502-19(c)(1)(ii), T's stock is treated as disposed of when it becomes a nonmember, and its losses are subject to paragraph (b) of this section. Thus, T's absorbed amount is determined by taking into account P's $30 of ordinary income but without taking into account any gain or loss on P's disposition of S's stock. Accordingly, T's absorbed amount determined under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section is $30. Under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, S's basis in T's stock is reduced by $30, from $500 to $470. Furthermore, under § 1.1502-32(a)(3)(iii), P's basis in S's stock is reduced by $30, from $500 to $470, immediately before the sale. Consequently, P recognizes a $50 gain from the sale of S's stock ($520−$470), and T will have a $50 ($80—$30) NOL carryover to its first separate return year.

(iii) Excess loss account in lower-tier stock. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i) of this Example 3, except that S has a $10 excess loss account (ELA) in T's stock (rather than a $500 basis). Under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, T's stock is treated as disposed of and its absorbed amount is determined under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section. Thus, T's absorbed amount is determined by taking into account P's $30 of ordinary income but without taking into account P's gain or loss on the disposition of S's stock and S's inclusion of its ELA with respect to T's stock under § 1.1502-19(b)(1). Accordingly, T's absorbed amount determined under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section is $30. Under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, S's ELA in its T stock is increased by $30, from $10 to $40, immediately before the disposition of T's stock. Under § 1.1502-19(b), the ELA is included in S's income. Moreover, under § 1.1502-32(b)(2), P's basis in S's stock is increased immediately before the sale by a net $10 (S's $40 inclusion of T's ELA under § 1.1502-19(b) minus T's $30 absorbed loss that tiers up under § 1.1502-32(a)(3)(iii)) from $500 to $510. Thus, P recognizes $10 of gain on the sale of S's stock ($520−$510), and S takes into account $40 of gain from the inclusion of its ELA in T's stock. T will have a $50 ($80−$30) NOL carryover to its first separate return year.

Example 4.

Sale of S's stock and S remains in the group. (i) Facts. For Year 1, the P group has CTI of $100 (all of which is attributable to P). At the beginning of Year 2, P has a $40 basis in each of the 10 shares of S's stock. P sells 2 shares of S's stock for $85 each at the close of Year 2. For Year 2, P has an $80 ordinary loss (determined without taking into account P's gain or loss from the sale of S's stock), and S has an $80 ordinary loss.

(ii) Determination of absorbed amount. To determine S's absorbed amount and the effect of the absorption of its losses under § 1.1502-32(b)(2) on P's basis in S's stock, the group's CTI for Year 2 is computed without taking into account P's gain or loss from the sale of S's stock. Thus, the group would have a $160 CNOL for Year 2, $100 of which is carried back to Year 1 ($50 attributable to S and $50 attributable to P) and offsets $100 of CTI in that year. Accordingly, S's absorbed amount determined under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section is $50.

(iii) Loss absorption and basis reduction. Under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, P's basis in all of S's stock is reduced by $50. Each of P's 10 shares of S stock is reduced by $5 from $40 to $35. Consequently, on the sale of each of the 2 shares of S's stock, P recognizes a $50 gain ($85−$35). The losses available to offset the $100 gain on the sale of S's 2 shares consist of P's $80 ordinary loss and $50 of S's ordinary loss equal its absorbed amount. Under paragraph (e) of this section, P's and S's losses are absorbed on a pro rata basis. Therefore, the group absorbs approximately $62 ($100 × 80/80 + 50) of P's ordinary loss from Year 2, and approximately $38 ($100 × 50/80 + 50) of S's ordinary loss in that year. P's remaining $18 ($80-$62) of ordinary loss in Year 2 and S's remaining $12 ($50−$38) of ordinary loss equal to its remaining absorbed amount may be carried back to Year 1 to offset $30 of the $100 of CTI in that year. For Year 2, the P group has $30 remaining of its CNOL (all of which is attributable to S) which is carried to the P group's Year 3 consolidated return year.

(iv) Lower-tier subsidiary. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i) of this Example 4, except that S has no income or loss for Year 2, but S's wholly owned subsidiary, T, has an $80 ordinary loss. Under paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section, T's loss is subject to paragraph (b) of this section as if T's stock had been disposed of. To determine T's absorbed amount, and the effect of the absorption of its losses under § 1.1502-32 on S's basis in its T stock and P's basis in its S stock, the group's taxable income is computed without taking into account P's gain or loss from the sale of S's stock. Of the group's $160 CNOL for Year 2, $100 is carried back to Year 1 ($50 attributable to P and $50 attributable to T) and offsets $100 of CTI in that year. Accordingly, T's absorbed amount determined under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section is $50. Under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, S's basis in T's stock is reduced by $50. Under § 1.1502-32(a)(3)(iii), the $50 reduction to S's basis in T's stock tiers up and reduces P's basis in its 10 shares of S stock by $50. Consequently, P's basis in each of the 10 shares of S stock will be decreased by $5 from $40 to $35. On the sale of each of the 2 shares of S's stock, P recognizes a $50 gain ($85−$35). Under the actual computation, the group has P's $80 ordinary loss and $50 of T's $80 ordinary loss (limited by its absorbed amount) available to offset P's $100 gain on the sale of S's stock. Under paragraph (e) of this section, P's gain is offset on a pro rata basis by approximately $62 ($100 × 80/($80 + $50)) of P's ordinary loss in Year 2, and approximately $38 ($100 × ($50/($80 + $50)) of T's ordinary loss in that year. P's remaining $18 of ordinary loss in Year 2 and $12 of T's ordinary loss equal to its remaining absorbed amount may be carried back to Year 1 to offset $30 of the $100 of CTI in that year. For Year 2, the P group has $30 remaining of its CNOL (all of which is attributable to T) which is carried to the P group's Year 3 consolidated return year.

Example 5.

Alternative Computation. (i) Facts. At the beginning of Year 1, P has a $200 basis in S's stock. P sells all of its S stock for $100 at the close of Year 1. For Year 1, P has $10 capital gain on portfolio stock. In addition to S, P has two other subsidiaries, M1 and M2. M1 has capital gain of $50; M2 has a capital loss of $30, and S has a capital loss of $60.

(ii) Determination of absorbed amount. To determine S's absorbed amounts and the effect of the absorption of its loss under § 1.1502-32(b)(2) on P's basis in S's stock, the group's taxable income is computed without taking into account P's gain or loss from the disposition of S's stock. Under that computation, S's capital loss would offset $40 ($60 × $60/$90) of the group's $60 of capital gain. Accordingly, S's absorbed amount is $40.

(iv) Computation of CTI under generally applicable rules. In the actual computation under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) of this section, P is treated as having a $50 capital loss ($60 capital loss on the sale of S's stock plus $10 capital gain). Therefore, the only capital gain in the actual computation is M1's $50. There is a total of $120 of capital loss in the computation: S's $40 of capital loss (equal to its absorbed amount), as well as P's $50 and M2's $30 capital losses. M1's $50 of capital gain would be offset on a pro rata basis by approximately $16.50 of S's loss ($50 × $40/$120), approximately $21.00 ($50 × $50/$120) of P's $50 capital loss, and $12.50 ($50 × $30/$120) of M2's capital loss. Because less than all of S's absorbed amount of $40 would be used, the group's CTI is determined under the alternative computation of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.

(v) Alternative computation of CTI. Under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(1) of this section, S's $40 capital loss (the amount and character of S's absorbed amount) first offsets $40 of the $60 of capital gain (determined without taking into account any gain or loss on P's sale of S stock and without regard to M2's capital loss of $30) generated by other members. Accordingly, $20 of capital gain (P's $10 capital gain determined without regard to its loss on S's stock plus M1's $50 capital gain minus S's $40 absorbed amount) remains. Because P has no net stock gain, paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(2) of this section is inapplicable. Under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(3) of this section, $10 (the amount of P's capital loss on S's stock limited by the amount of its income included in the computation under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section) of P's capital loss offsets the group's $20 remaining capital gain. Under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(4) of this section, capital losses of members other than S offset the group's remaining $10 of capital gain on a pro rata basis. Therefore, the group will use $3.75 of M2's $30 capital loss ($10 × $30/$80) and $6.25 of P's $50 remaining capital loss ($10 × $50/$80). The group will have a $70 consolidated net capital loss carryover to Year 2 ($43.75 attributable to P and $26.25 attributable to M2). Paragraphs (b), (c), and (d)(6) of § 1.1502-36 will not cause P to adjust its basis in S's stock immediately before P's sale of the S stock. However, S's $20 unabsorbed capital loss that may be carried to its first separate return year may be reduced under the attribute reduction rule of § 1.1502-36(d)(2).

Example 6.

Loss disposition. (i) Facts. For Year 1, the P group has a consolidated net capital loss of $100, all of which is attributable to S, and P and M have no income or loss. At the beginning of Year 2, P has a $300 basis in S's stock. P sells all of S's stock for $100 at the close of Year 2. For Year 2, P and S have no income or loss (determined without taking into account P's gain or loss from the disposition of S's stock) and the group has consolidated capital gain net income of $100 attributable solely to M.

(ii) Determination of absorbed amount. To determine S's absorbed amount and the effect of the absorption of its losses under § 1.1502-32(b)(2) on P's basis in S's stock, the group's taxable income for Year 2 is computed without taking into account P's gain or loss from the disposition of S's stock. The $100 consolidated net capital loss carryover from Year 1 attributable to S offsets the group's $100 of consolidated capital gain net income in Year 2. Accordingly, S's absorbed amount determined under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section is $100.

(iii) Loss absorption and basis reduction. Under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, P's basis in S's stock is reduced from $300 to $200 immediately before the disposition. Consequently, P recognizes a $100 capital loss on the sale of S's stock. In an actual computation of CTI, P's $100 capital loss on S's stock in Year 2 would offset M's $100 capital gain in Year 2 before the consolidated capital loss carryover from Year 1 and, as a result, S's $100 absorbed amount would not be used. Because less than all of S's absorbed amount of $100 would be used, the group's CTI is determined under the alternative computation of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.

(iv) Alternative Computation of CTI. Under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(1) of section, S's $100 consolidated net capital loss carryover from Year 1 first offsets M's $100 of capital gain in Year 2. Because P has no net stock gain to be added to the computation, the amount under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(2) of this section is zero. Because there is no remaining income to offset, paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B)(3) and (b)(2)(iii)(B)(4) of this section are inapplicable. Therefore, P's $100 loss on S's stock becomes a consolidated net capital loss carryover to the group's Year 3 consolidated return year.

Example 7.

Netting of Disposing Member's Gains and Losses. (i) Facts. At the beginning of Year 1, P has a $120 basis in S's stock. P sells all of S's stock for $80 at the close of Year 1. In addition, P has $60 capital loss on the sale of portfolio stock. S has a capital loss of $180. M1 has a capital gain of $100 and M2 has a capital loss of $120.

(ii) Determination of absorbed amount. To determine S's absorbed amount and the effect of the absorption of its loss under § 1.1502-32(b)(2) on P's basis in S's stock, the group's taxable income is computed without taking into account P's gain or loss from the disposition of S's stock. Under that computation, S's capital loss would offset $50 ($100 × $180/($180 + $120 + $60)) of M1's $100 capital gain. Accordingly, S's absorbed amount is $50.

(iii) Basis reduction and computation of CTI under generally applicable rules. Under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, P's basis in S's stock is reduced by $50 from $120 to $70 immediately before the sale. Consequently, P recognizes a $10 capital gain on the sale of S's stock. In an actual computation of CTI, P's $10 capital gain on the sale of S's stock would be offset by $10 of P's $60 capital loss. M1's $100 capital gain would be offset by $22.73 ($100 × $50/($50 + $120 + $50)) of P's $50 of net capital loss, $54.54 ($100 × $120/$220) of M2's $120 capital loss and $22.73 ($100 × $50/$220) of S's $50 capital loss. Because less than all of S's absorbed amount of $50 would be used, the group's CTI is determined under the alternative computation of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.

(iv) Alternative computation of CTI. Under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(1) of this section, $50 of S's capital loss (the amount and character of S's absorbed amount) first offsets $50 of the $100 capital gain (determined without taking into account any gain or loss on P's sale of S stock and without regard to P's and M2's capital losses). Therefore, after the absorption of S's loss equal to its absorbed amount, there is $50 of remaining capital gain. P will have a $10 capital gain on the sale of S's stock, a $60 capital loss on portfolio stock, and M2 will have a $120 capital loss. Under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(2) of this section, $10 of P's $60 loss on portfolio stock offsets its $10 gain on S's stock before M2's $120 capital loss is taken into account. No member has a net loss on subsidiary stock, and therefore paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(3) of this section does not apply. Under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(4) of this section, the remaining capital gain of $50 after the application of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(3) is offset pro rata by $14.70 ($50 × $50/($50 + $120)) of P's capital loss and $35.30 ($50 × $120/$170) of M2's capital loss. P's unused capital loss of $35.30 and M2's unused capital loss of $84.70 become a $120 consolidated net capital loss carryover to the group's Year 2 consolidated return year.

Example 8.

Character of Absorbed Amount. (i) Facts. At the beginning of Year 1, P has a $550 basis in S's stock. P sells all of S's stock for $50 at the close of Year 1. In addition, P has a capital gain of $200 (without regard to gain or loss on the sale of S's stock). S has an ordinary loss of $50 and M has an ordinary loss of $25.

(ii) Determination of absorbed amount. To determine S's absorbed amount and the effect of the absorption of its losses under § 1.1502-32(b)(2) on P's basis in S's stock, the group's taxable income is computed without taking into account P's gain or loss from the disposition of S's stock. Under that computation, S's $50 ordinary loss and M's $25 ordinary loss offset $75 of P's $200 capital gain. Accordingly, S's absorbed amount determined under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section is $50.

(iii) Basis reduction and computation of CTI under generally applicable rules. Under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, P's basis in S's stock is reduced by $50 from $550 to $500 immediately before the sale. Consequently, P recognizes a $450 capital loss on the sale of S's stock. In an actual computation of CTI, $200 of P's $450 capital loss on its sale of S's stock would offset its $200 capital gain and none of S's absorbed amount would be used. Because less than all of S's absorbed amount of $50 would be used, the group's CTI is determined under the alternative computation of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.

(iv) Alternative computation of CTI. Under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(1) of this section, S's $50 ordinary loss first offsets $50 of P's $200 capital gain. Therefore, after the absorption of S's loss equal to its absorbed amount, the group will have $150 ($200 − $50) of remaining capital gain. Because P has no net stock gain to be added to the computation, paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(2) of this section is inapplicable. Under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(3) of this section, $150 of P's $450 loss on S's stock (the lesser of P's $200 capital gain or the group's $150 remaining capital gain) offsets the group's remaining $150 of capital gain. Because there is no more income in the group for M's loss to offset, the amount under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(4) of this section is zero. Therefore, P's remaining unused capital loss on S's stock of $300 and M's $25 ordinary loss become carryovers to the group's Year 2 consolidated return year.

Example 9.

Worthless Stock Loss. (i) Facts. At the beginning of Year 1, P has a $120 basis in S's stock. For Year 1, P has $100 of ordinary income (determined without taking into account P's gain or loss on the disposition of S's stock) and S generates an $80 ordinary loss. At the close of Year 1, S issues stock to its creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding, and P's stock in S is canceled. The aggregate of S's historic gross receipts meets the requirements of section 165(g)(3)(B), which allows P to claim an ordinary loss with respect to S's stock.

(ii) Determination of absorbed amount. To determine S's absorbed amount and the effect of the absorption under § 1.1502-32(b)(2) on P's basis in S's stock, the group's CTI is computed without taking into account P's gain or loss from the disposition of S's stock. Under that computation, S's $80 ordinary loss would offset $80 of P's $100 of ordinary income. Accordingly, S's absorbed amount under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section is $80.

(iii) Basis reduction and computation of CTI under generally applicable rules. Under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, S's $80 absorbed amount reduces P's basis in S's stock from $120 to $40. Therefore, P's worthless stock deduction with respect to S's stock is $40. In an actual computation of CTI, P's separate taxable income under § 1.1502-12 would be determined by offsetting P's $100 of ordinary income with its $40 worthless stock deduction with respect to S's stock, leaving $60 of ordinary income that would be offset by S's ordinary loss. However, that computation would result in the absorption of only $60 of S's losses. Because less than all of S's absorbed amount of $80 would be used, the group's CTI is determined under the alternative computation of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.

(iv) Alternative computation of CTI. Under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(1) of this section, S's $80 ordinary loss first offsets $80 of P's $100 of ordinary income. Therefore, after the absorption of S's loss equal to its absorbed amount, the group will have $20 of remaining ordinary income. Because P has no net stock gain to be added to the computation, the amount under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(2) of this section is zero. Under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(3) of this section, the group uses $20 of P's $40 ordinary loss on S's stock to offset the remaining $20 income of the group. Because there remains no more income in the group, the amount under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(4) of this section is zero. P's remaining $20 ordinary loss becomes a CNOL carryover to the group's Year 2 consolidated return year.

Example 10.

Charitable Contributions. (i) Facts. At the beginning of Year 1, P has a $1,000 basis in S's stock. P sells all of its S stock for $900 at the close of Year 1. For Year 1, P has $1,000 of ordinary income (determined without taking into account P's gain or loss on the disposition of S's stock). For Year 1, S makes a $100 charitable contribution and incurs $200 of ordinary and necessary business expenses that are deductible under section 162(a). In addition, P has a subsidiary M, which also makes a $100 charitable contribution.

(ii) Determination of S's portion of consolidated charitable contributions deduction. Under § 1.1502-24(a), a group's consolidated charitable contributions deduction is limited to ten percent of its adjusted consolidated taxable income as defined in § 1.1502-24(c). Under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(D) of this section, S's portion of the group's consolidated charitable contributions deduction is determined by computing the group's taxable income without regard to P's gain or loss on S's stock. Thus, for purposes of determining the consolidated charitable contributions deduction for Year 1, the group's CTI would be $800 (P's $1,000 of income minus S's $200 of section 162 expenses). Accordingly, the consolidated charitable contributions deduction for Year 1 is limited to $80 ($800 × 10%), $40 attributable to S and $40 attributable to M. Accordingly, S's ordinary loss for Year 1 is $240 ($200 + $40).

(iii) Determination of absorbed amount. To determine S's absorbed amount and the effect of the absorption of its losses under § 1.1502-32(b)(2) on P's basis in S's stock, the group's CTI is computed without taking into account P's gain or loss from the disposition of S's stock. S's $240 ordinary loss offsets $240 of P's $1,000 of ordinary income. Accordingly, S's absorbed amount is $240.

(iv) Loss absorption and basis reduction. Under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, S's $240 absorbed amount reduces P's basis in S's stock from $1,000 to $760. On the sale of S's stock, P recognizes capital gain of $140 ($900 − $760). P's ordinary income is offset by $240 of S's ordinary loss and $40 of M's portion of the group's consolidated charitable contributions deduction, resulting in CTI of $860 ($1,000 + $140 − $280). Of the group's excess charitable contributions of $120, $60 will be apportioned to S and carried to its first separate return year. The remaining $60 of excess consolidated charitable contributions is the group's consolidated charitable contribution carryover under § 1.1502-24(b).

Example 11.

Application of Unified Loss Rule. (i) Facts. In Year 1, P purchases the sole share of S's stock for $500. At the time of the purchase, S owns Land with a basis of $420. During Year 1, P incurs a $100 ordinary loss and S earns $100 in rental income, which increases P's basis in S's stock to $600. For Year 2, P has ordinary income of $30 (determined without taking into account P's gain or loss from the disposition of S's stock) and S incurs an ordinary loss of $80. At the close of Year 2, S has $20 of cash in addition to Land. In addition to S, P has another subsidiary M, which has an ordinary loss of $40 for Year 2. At the close of Year 2, when the value of Land has declined, P sells the sole share of S's stock for $480. No election is made under § 1.1502-36(d)(6) to reduce P's basis in S's stock or reattribute S's attributes to P.

(ii) Determination of absorbed amount. To determine S's absorbed amount and the effect of the absorption of its losses under § 1.1502-32(b)(2) on P's basis in S's stock, the group's CTI is computed without taking into account P's gain or loss from the disposition of S's stock. Under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, P's $30 of ordinary income would be offset by $10 ($30 × $40/$120) of M's ordinary loss for Year 2 and $20 ($30 × $80/$120) of S's ordinary loss for Year 2. Accordingly, S's absorbed amount determined under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section is $20.

(iii) Loss absorption and basis reduction. Under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, S's $20 absorbed amount reduces P's basis in S's stock from $600 (P's $500 purchase price plus the $100 positive adjustment in Year 1) to $580. After taking into account the effects of all applicable rules of law, including paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, P would recognize a $100 ($480 − $580) loss on the sale of S's stock. Thus, P's sale of the S share is a transfer of a loss share and therefore subject to § 1.1502-36. Under § 1.1502-36(b)(1)(ii), P's basis in its sole share of S's stock is not subject to redetermination. Under § 1.1502-36(c), P's basis in the S share ($580) is reduced, but not below value, by the lesser of the share's net positive adjustment and disconformity amount. The share's net positive adjustment is the greater of zero and the sum of all investment adjustments (as defined in § 1.1502-36(b)(1)(iii)) applied to the basis of the share. The net positive adjustment applied to the basis of the share is $80, S's $100 income for Year 1 and its $20 absorbed amount for Year 2. The share's disconformity amount is the excess, if any, of its basis ($580) over its allocable portion of S's net inside attribute amount. S's net inside attribute amount of $500 is the sum of S's $20 cash, S's basis in Land of $420, and S's $60 loss carryover ($80 − $20). Thus, the share's disconformity amount is $80 ($580 − $500). The lesser of the net positive adjustment ($80) and the share's disconformity amount ($80) is $80. Accordingly, under § 1.1502-36(c), P's basis in S's share is reduced by $80 from $580 to $500, and after taking into account the adjustments under paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 1.1502-36, the transferred S share is still a loss share ($480 sale price minus $500 basis).

(iv) Computation of CTI. In an actual computation of CTI, P's $30 of ordinary income would be offset on a pro rata basis by $20 ($30 × $40/$60) of M's ordinary loss and $10 ($30 × $20/$60) of S's ordinary loss. Because less than all of S's absorbed amount of $20 would be used, the group's CTI is determined under the alternative computation of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section. Under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(1) of this section, the computation of CTI is made by first computing the group's taxable income without taking into account P's loss on the disposition of S's stock and using only S's loss equal to its $20 absorbed amount. Accordingly, the group's $30 of ordinary income is reduced by $20 of S's ordinary loss, leaving $10 of remaining ordinary income. Because P has no net stock gain to be added to the computation, paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(2) of this section is inapplicable. Under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(3) of this section, the group's remaining $10 of ordinary income is offset by a loss on the disposition of subsidiary stock, subject to applicable principles of the Code and regulations. The group's remaining $10 of income may not be offset by P's capital loss on the sale of S's stock, because P has no income of the same character on its loss on S's stock. Under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)(4) of this section, the group's remaining $10 of ordinary income is offset by $10 of M's ordinary loss. M's $30 unabsorbed loss is carried over as a CNOL and P's remaining $20 capital loss from the sale of S's stock is carried over as a consolidated net capital loss to the group's Year 3 consolidated return year. S's $60 unused loss would be carried over to its separate return year subject to § 1.1502-36(d). Under § 1.1502-36(d)(2), S's attributes are reduced by S's attribute reduction amount. Under § 1.1502-36(d)(3), S's attribute reduction amount is the lesser of the net stock loss and S's aggregate inside loss. The net stock loss is $20, the excess of the $500 basis of the transferred share over the $480 value of the transferred share. S's aggregate inside loss is $20, the excess of its $500 net inside attribute amount over the $480 value of the S share. Therefore, the attribute reduction amount is $20, the lesser of the $20 net stock loss and the $20 aggregate inside loss. Accordingly, S's $20 attribute reduction amount is applied to reduce from $60 to $40 the amount of S's NOL carryover to its separate return year.

(v) Election to reduce stock basis. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i) of this Example 11 except that P elects under § 1.1502-36(d)(6)(i)(B) to reattribute S's losses to the full extent of the attribute reduction amount ($20). Accordingly, P is treated as succeeding to $20 of S's losses as if acquired in a transaction described in section 381(a) (see § 1.1502-36(d)(6)(i)(B) and (iv)(A)) and, as a result, P's basis in the S share is reduced from $500 to $480. After giving effect to the election, P will have no loss on S's stock, the group will have a $50 CNOL carryover to Year 3 ($30 attributable to M and $20 attributable to P), and S will have a $40 NOL carryover to its separate return year.

(3) Effective/applicability date. This paragraph (b) applies to dispositions of subsidiary stock occurring in consolidated return years beginning on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.

(c) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) Limitation on deductions and losses to offset income or gain. First, the determination of the extent to which S's deductions and losses for the consolidated return year of the disposition (and its deductions and losses carried over from prior years) may offset income and gain is made pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

(ii) Tentative adjustment of stock basis. Second, § 1.1502-32 is tentatively applied to adjust the basis of the S stock to reflect the amount of S's income and gain included, and S's absorbed amount of losses, in the computation of consolidated taxable income or loss for the year of disposition (and any prior years) that is made pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section, but not to reflect the realization of excluded COD income and the reduction of attributes in respect thereof.

(4) Definition of lower-tier corporation. For purposes of this paragraph (c), lower-tier corporation means a lower-tier subsidiary described in § 1.1502-36(f)(4).

(7) Effective/applicability date. * * * However, paragraphs (c)(2) and (4) of this section apply to consolidated return years beginning on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.

(e) Absorption rule—(1) Pro rata absorption of ordinary losses. If the group has a CNOL for a consolidated return year, the amount of each member's separate net operating loss, as defined in § 1.1502-21(b)(2)(iv)(B)(1), for the year that offsets the income or gain of other members is determined on a pro rata basis under the principles of § 1.1502-21(b)(2)(iv). For example, if, for the consolidated return year, P and S1 have a separate net operating loss of $60 and $30, respectively, and S2 (the only other member of the P group) has $21 of income, $14 of P's net operating loss and $7 of S1's net operating loss offset S2's $21 of income and are absorbed in the year.

(2) Pro-rata absorption of capital losses. If the group has a consolidated net capital loss for a consolidated return year and any member has capital gain net income for the year (taking into account only its capital gains and losses), the amount of each member's capital loss (as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section) that offsets the sum of the capital gain net income of other members (computed separately for each member) is determined on a pro rata basis under the principles of § 1.1502-21(b)(2)(iv). For purposes of this paragraph (e)(2), the character of each member's gains and losses is first determined on a consolidated basis. See §§ 1.1502-22 and 1.1502-23.

(3) Effective/applicability date. This paragraph (e) applies to consolidated return years beginning on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.

(b) Any deduction that is disallowed under § 1.1502-15 shall be taken into account as provided in that section;

(e) If a member disposes of a share of a subsidiary's stock, the member's deduction or loss (if any) on the stock that will be used in the consolidated return year of the disposition and as a carryback to prior years is computed in accordance with § 1.1502-11(b) or (c), as appropriate.

(B) Percentage of CNOL attributable to a member—(1) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(B)(2) of this section, the percentage of the CNOL attributable to a member shall equal the separate net operating loss of the member for the consolidated return year divided by the sum of the separate net operating losses of all members having such losses for that year. For this purpose, the separate net operating loss of a member is determined by computing the CNOL by reference to only the member's items of income, gain, deduction, and loss (excluding capital gains and amounts treated as capital gains), including the member's losses and deductions actually absorbed by the group in the consolidated return year (whether or not absorbed by the member).

(2) Recomputed percentage. If, for any reason, a member's portion of a CNOL is absorbed or reduced on a non pro rata basis (for example, under §§ 1.1502-11(b) or (c), 1.1502-28, 1.1502-36(d), or as the result of a carryback to a separate return year), the percentage of the CNOL attributable to each member is recomputed. In addition, if a member with a separate net operating loss ceases to be a member, the percentage of the CNOL attributable to each remaining member is recomputed under paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(B)(1) of this section. The recomputed percentage of the CNOL attributable to each member shall equal the remaining CNOL attributable to the member at the time of the recomputation divided by the sum of the remaining CNOL attributable to all of the remaining members at the time of the recomputation.

(3) * * *

(vi) Amount of subsidiary's absorbed deductions and losses if subsidiary's stock is disposed of. For special rules regarding the amount of a subsidiary's deductions and losses that is absorbed if a member disposes of a share of the subsidiary's stock, see § 1.1502-11(b) and (c).

(h) * * *

(1) * * *

(iv) Paragraphs (b)(2)(iv)(B) and (b)(3)(vi) of this section apply to consolidated return years beginning on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.

(2) The consolidated net section 1231 gain for the year (determined under § 1.1502-23);

(3) The net capital loss carryovers or carrybacks to the year; and

(4) Applying the ordering rules of § 1.1502-11(b) if stock of a subsidiary is disposed of.

§ 1.1502-22A [Removed]Par. 7. Section 1.1502-22A is removed.§ 1.1502-23A [Removed]Par. 8. Section 1.1502-23A is removed.§ 1.1502-24 [Amended]Par. 9. Section 1.1502-24 is amended by:1. Removing the words “Five percent” in paragraph (a)(2) and adding “The percentage limitation on the total charitable contribution deduction provided in section 170(b)(2)(A)” in its place.2. Removing “section 242,” and “§ 1.1502-25,” in paragraph (c).PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATIONPar. 10. The authority citation for part 301 is amended by revising the entry for § 301.6402-7 to read in part as follows:Authority:

26 U.S.C. 7805.

Section 301.6402-7 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6402(k).Par. 11. Section 301.6402-7 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph (g)(2)(ii) and paragraph (l) to read as follows:§ 301.6402-7 Claims for refund and applications for tentative carryback adjustments involving consolidated groups that include insolvent financial institutions.

(g) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) * * * For this purpose, the separate net operating loss of a member is determined by computing the consolidated net operating loss by reference to only the member's items of income, gain, deduction, and loss (excluding capital gains and amounts treated as capital gains), including the member's losses and deductions actually absorbed by the group in the consolidated return year (whether or not absorbed by the member).

(l) Effective/applicability dates. This section applies to refunds and tentative carryback adjustments paid after December 30, 1991. However, the last sentence of paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section applies to separate net operating losses of members incurred in consolidated return years beginning on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Iowa to amend Best Management Practices (BMPs) for grain vacuuming operations at Group 1 grain elevators. Additional revisions to the SIP include revised definitions, revised requirements for Department forms, and rescinding rule requirements and references for conditional permits.

DATES:

Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by July 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0358, by mail to Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the Technical Support Document that is part of this rulemaking docket. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD), Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD), and San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emission statements, definitions and mobile equipment coating. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES:

Any comments on this proposal must arrive by July 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0246, by one of the following methods:

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to the EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

This proposal addresses the following local rules: BCAQMD Rule 101, BCAQMD Rule 434, FRAQMD Rule 3.19 and SLOCAPCD Rule 222. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), proposed in an earlier document to establish annual hunting regulations for certain migratory game birds for the 2015-16 hunting season. This supplement to the proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule, announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and Flyway Council meetings, and provides Flyway Council recommendations resulting from their March meetings.

DATES:

Comments: You must submit comments on the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2015-16 duck hunting seasons on or before June 26, 2015, as detailed in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19852). Following subsequent Federal Register notices, you will be given an opportunity to submit comments for proposed early-season frameworks by July 29, 2015, and for proposed late-season frameworks by August 29, 2015.

Meetings: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet to consider and develop proposed regulations for early-season migratory bird hunting on June 24 and 25, 2015; and for late-season migratory bird hunting and the 2015 spring/summer Alaskan migratory bird subsistence season on July 29 and 30, 2015. All meetings will commence at approximately 8:30 a.m. and are open to the public.

ADDRESSES:

Comments: You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the following methods:

We will not accept emailed or faxed comments. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section, below, for more information).

Meetings: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia.

On April 13, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 19852) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. This document is the second in a series of proposed, supplemental, and final rules for migratory game bird hunting regulations. We will publish proposed early-season frameworks in early July and late-season frameworks in early August. We will publish final regulatory frameworks for early seasons on or about August 15, 2015, and for late seasons on or about September 19, 2015.

Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings

The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee (SRC) will meet June 24-25, 2015, to review information on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and develop 2015-16 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for these species, plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The SRC will also develop regulations recommendations for September waterfowl seasons in designated States, special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway, and extended falconry seasons. In addition, the SRC will review and discuss preliminary information on the status of waterfowl.

At the July 29-30, 2015, meetings, the SRC will review information on the current status of waterfowl and develop 2015-16 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for regular waterfowl seasons and other species and seasons not previously discussed at the early-season meetings. In addition, the SRC will develop recommendations for the 2016 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence season in Alaska.

In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to public observation. You may submit written comments to the Service on the matters discussed.

Announcement of Flyway Council Meetings

Service representatives will be present at the individual meetings of the four Flyway Councils this July. Although agendas are not yet available, these meetings usually commence at 8 a.m. on the days indicated and are also open to the public.

This supplemental rulemaking describes Flyway Council recommended changes based on the preliminary proposals published in the April 13, 2015, Federal Register. We have included only those recommendations requiring either new proposals or substantial modification of the preliminary proposals and do not include recommendations that simply support or oppose preliminary proposals and provide no recommended alternatives. Our responses to some Flyway Council recommendations, but not others, are merely a clarification to aid the reader on the overall regulatory process, not a definitive response to the issue. We will publish responses to all proposals and written comments when we develop final frameworks.

We seek additional information and comments on the recommendations in this supplemental proposed rule. New proposals and modifications to previously described proposals are discussed below. Wherever possible, they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items identified in the April 13, 2015, proposed rule. Only those categories requiring your attention or for which we received Flyway Council recommendations are discussed below.

Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that regulations changes be restricted to one step per year, both when restricting as well as liberalizing hunting regulations.

Service Response: As we stated in the April 13, 2015, Federal Register, the final adaptive harvest management (AHM) protocol for the 2015-16 season will be detailed in the early-season proposed rule, which will be published in mid-July.

B. Regulatory Alternatives

Council Recommendations: The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommended that regulatory alternatives for duck hunting seasons remain the same as those used in 2014-15.

Service Response: As we stated in the April 13, 2015, Federal Register, the final regulatory alternatives for the 2015-16 season will be detailed in the early-season proposed rule, which will be published in mid-July.

C. Zones and Split Seasons

Council Recommendations: The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommended no changes to the existing zone and split season guidelines. However, they further recommended that States be provided the option of changing duck zones and split arrangements in either the 2016-17 or 2017-18 seasons, with the next open season in 2021 for the 2021-25 period.

4. Canada GeeseA. Special Seasons

Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended increasing season length from 7 to 15 days and the daily bag limit from 2 to 5 for Canada geese in Idaho.

B. Regular Seasons

Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the framework opening date for all species of geese for the regular goose seasons be September 16, 2015, in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan and Wisconsin, and September 11, 2015, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

6. Brant

For the 2015-16 Atlantic brant season, we will continue to use the existing Flyway Cooperative Management Plan for this species to determine the appropriate hunting regulations. However, as we discuss below, the process for determining regulations for the 2016-17 season will need to be modified. In the April 30, 2014 (79 FR 24512), and the April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19852), Federal Registers, we discussed how, under the new regulatory process, the current early- and late-season regulatory actions will be combined into a new single process beginning with the 2016-17 seasons. Regulatory proposals will be developed using biological data from the preceding year(s), model predictions, or most recently accumulated data that are available at the time the proposals are being formulated. Individual harvest strategies will be modified using data from the previous year(s) because the current year's data would not be available for many of the strategies. Further, we stated that, during this transition period, harvest strategies and prescriptions would be modified to fit into the new regulatory schedule. Atlantic brant is one such species that will require some modifications to the regulatory process that we have largely used since 1992 to establish the annual frameworks.

In developing the annual proposed frameworks for Atlantic brant in the past, the Atlantic Flyway Council and the Service used the number of brant counted during the Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey (MWS) in the Atlantic Flyway, and took into consideration the brant population's expected productivity that summer. The MWS is conducted each January, and expected brant productivity is based on early-summer observations of breeding habitat conditions and nesting effort in important brant nesting areas. Thus, the data under consideration were available before the annual Flyway and SRC decision-making meetings took place in late July. Although the existing regulatory alternatives for Atlantic brant were developed by factoring together long-term productivity rates (observed during November and December productivity surveys) with estimated observed harvest under different framework regulations, the primary decision-making criterion for selecting the annual frameworks was the MWS count.

In the April 13, 2015, Federal Register, we presented the major steps in the 2016-17 regulatory cycle relating to biological information availability, open public meetings, and Federal Register notifications. Under the new regulatory schedule due to be implemented this fall and winter for the 2016-17 migratory bird hunting regulations, neither the expected 2016 brant production information (available summer 2016) nor the 2016 MWS count (conducted in January 2016) will be available this October, when the decisions on proposed Atlantic brant frameworks for the 2016-17 seasons must be made. However, the 2016 MWS will be completed and winter brant data available by the expected publication of the final frameworks (late February 2016). Therefore, while we plan to discuss this issue with the Atlantic Flyway Council this summer, we envision proposing frameworks for Atlantic brant in 2016-17 similar to the ones laid out below, with the final decision to be determined by the 2016 MWS count:

If the MWS count is <100,000 Atlantic brant, the season will be closed.

If the MWS count is between 100,000 and 125,000 brant, States may select a 30-day season between the Saturday nearest September 24 and January 31, with a 2-bird daily bag limit. States may split their seasons into 2 segments.

If the MWS count is between 125,000 and 150,000 brant, States may select a 50-day season between the Saturday nearest September 24 and January 31, with a 2-bird daily bag limit. States may split their seasons into 2 segments.

If the MWS count is between 150,000 and 200,000 brant, States may select a 60-day season between the Saturday nearest September 24 and January 31, with a 2-bird daily bag limit. States may split their seasons into 2 segments.

If the MWS count is >200,000 brant, States may select a 60-day season between the Saturday nearest September 24 and January 31, with a 3-bird daily bag limit. States may split their seasons into 2 segments.

While only an illustration at this point, the example prescriptive regulatory frameworks listed above are identical to those contained in the Atlantic Flyway Council's current Atlantic brant hunt plan (2011), with the exception of considering expected brant production. However, at this time our new regulatory schedule will likely preclude any formal consideration of the brant population's expected productivity in the summer. While something similar to this process would be a slight change to the existing mechanics of the Atlantic brant hunt plan, we believe it would have no significant effects on the long-term conservation of the Atlantic brant resource. We look forward to continuing discussions and work on the Atlantic brant issue with the Atlantic Flyway Council this summer in preparation for the 2016-17 season.

For a more detailed discussion of the various technical aspects of the new regulatory process, we refer the reader to the 2013 Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement available on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds.

8. Swans

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyway Councils recommended increasing tundra swan permit numbers by 25 percent (2,400 permits) for the 2015-16 season, if the final 3-year running average mid-winter count exceeds 110,000 Eastern Population tundra swans, in accordance with the Eastern Population tundra swan management plan.

9. Sandhill Cranes

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils recommended that Kentucky be granted an operational sandhill crane hunting season beginning in 2015 following the guidelines established in the Eastern Population of Sandhill Cranes Management Plan (EP Management Plan). Kentucky's operational season would consist of a maximum season length of 60 days (with no splits) to be held between September 1 and January 31, with a daily bag limit of 2 birds, and a season limit of 3 birds. Hunting would occur between sunrise and sunset. Per the guidelines set forth in the EP Management Plan, and based on the state's 5-year peak average of 12,072 birds, Kentucky would be allowed to issue a maximum of 1,207 tags during the 2015-16 season. These permits would be divided among 400 permitted hunters. Hunters would be required to take mandatory whooping crane identification training, utilize Service-approved nontoxic shot shells, tag birds, report harvest daily via Kentucky's reporting system, and complete a post-season survey.

The Central and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended using the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) sandhill crane harvest allocation of 938 birds as proposed in the allocation formula using the 3-year running population average for 2012-14. The Councils also recommended that, under the new annual regulatory process beginning with the 2016-17 season, the harvest strategy described in the Pacific and Central Flyway Management Plan for RMP sandhill cranes be published in the proposed season frameworks and be used to determine allowable harvest. They recommended that the final allowable harvest each year be included in the final season frameworks published in February.

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended some minor changes to the hunt area boundaries in Idaho to simplify and clarify hunt area descriptions. More specifically, Area 5 would now include all of Franklin County and Area 1 would include all of Caribou County except that portion lying within the Grays Lake Basin.

Service Response: Regarding the RMP crane harvest and the new regulatory process, this issue is very similar to the Atlantic brant issue discussed above under 6. Brant. Currently, results of the fall survey of RMP sandhill cranes, upon which the annual allowable harvest is based, will continue to be released between December 15 and January 31 each year, which is after the date for which proposed frameworks will be formulated. If the usual procedures for determining allowable harvest were used, data 2-4 years old would be used to determine the annual allocation for RMP sandhill cranes. Due to the variability in fall survey counts and recruitment for this population, and their impact on the annual harvest allocations, we agree that relying on data that is 2-4 years old is not ideal. Thus, we look forward to continuing discussions and work on the RMP crane issue with the Central and Pacific Flyway Councils this summer in preparation for the 2016-17 season.

11. Moorhens and Gallinules

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended allowing the hunting of purple swamphens in Florida beginning in 2015. They recommended that hunting be allowed during any open waterfowl season and that all regulations in 50 CFR 20 subparts C and D would apply. Further, they recommended a daily bag limit of 25 birds, with a possession limit of 75. They also recommended that we exclude this species from monitoring programs.

15. Band-Tailed Pigeons

Council Recommendations: The Central and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended decreasing the season length for the Interior Population of band-tailed pigeons from 30 days to 14 days, and decreasing the bag limit from 5 to 2.

16. Mourning Doves

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils recommended use of the “standard” season framework comprising a 90-day season and 15-bird daily bag limit for States within the Eastern Management Unit. The daily bag limit could be composed of mourning doves and white-winged doves, singly or in combination.

The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommend the use of the “standard” season package of a 15-bird daily bag limit and a 70-day season for the 2015-16 mourning dove season in the States within the Central Management Unit.

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended use of the “standard” season framework for States in the Western Management Unit (WMU) population of doves. In Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, the season length would be no more than 60 consecutive days with a daily bag limit of 15 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate. In Arizona and California, the season length would be no more than 60 consecutive days, which could be split between two periods, September 1-15 and November 1-January 15. In Arizona, during the first segment of the season, the daily bag limit would be 15 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 10 could be white-winged doves. During the remainder of the season, the daily bag limit would be 15 mourning doves. In California, the daily bag limit would be 15 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 10 could be white-winged doves.

The Central Flyway Council also recommended that the Service adopt a new “standard” season package framework comprising a 90-day season and 15-bird daily bag limit for States within the Central Management Unit beginning with the 2016-17 hunting season.

17. Alaska

Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended several changes in the Alaska early-season frameworks. Specifically, they recommended:

1. In Unit 18, in western Alaska, increasing white-fronted geese daily bag and possession limits from 8 and 24, to 10 and 30, respectively.

2. For Canada geese in Units 6-B, 6-C, and on Hinchinbrook and Hawkins Islands in Unit 6-D, increasing the possession limit from two times to three times the daily bag limit.

Public Comments

The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will take into consideration all comments we receive. Such comments, and any additional information we receive, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.

You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in DATES. We will post all comments in their entirety—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA.

For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in any final rules.

Required Determinations

Based on our most current data, we are affirming our required determinations made in the proposed rule; for descriptions of our actions to ensure compliance with the following statutes and Executive Orders, see our April 13, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 19852):

The rulemaking outlined in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19852) and in this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, proposed to be promulgated for the 2015-16 hunting season, is authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712, and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing the availability of its updated “Best Practices Guidance for Controlling Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) in Retail Delicatessens” and responding to comments received on the guidance that FSIS posted on its Web site and announced in April 2014 in the Federal Register. The best-practices guidance discusses steps that retailers can take to prevent certain ready-to-eat (RTE) foods that are prepared or sliced in retail delicatessens (delis) and consumed in the home, such as deli meats and deli salads, from becoming contaminated with Lm and thus a source of listeriosis. FSIS encourages retailers to review the guidance and evaluate the effectiveness of their retail practices and intervention strategies in reducing the risk of listeriosis to consumers from RTE meat and poultry deli products.

Lm is a bacterium that is found in moist environments, soil, and decaying vegetation and can persist along the food continuum. Transfer of the bacterium from the environment (e.g., deli cases, slicers, and utensils), employees, or contaminated food products is a particular hazard of concern in RTE foods, including meat and poultry products, because they generally receive no further processing for food safety before consumption. Listeriosis is a serious infection usually caused by eating food contaminated with Lm.

On April 21, 2014, FSIS announced the availability of its “Best Practices Guidance for Controlling Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) in Retail Delicatessens” and requested comment on the guidance (79 FR 22082). As explained in the 2014 Federal Register notice, FSIS used the key findings from the FSIS and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “Interagency Risk Assessment—Listeria monocytogenes in Retail Delicatessens” available on FSIS's Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/science/risk-assessments, the available scientific knowledge, the 2013 FDA Food Code,1 and lessons learned from controlling Lm in FSIS-inspected meat and poultry processing establishments to develop the Best Practices Guidance for Controlling Lm in Retail Delis. The guidance provides practical recommendations that retailers can use to control Lm contamination and outgrowth in the deli. Retailers can use the best-practices guidance to help ensure that RTE meat and poultry products in the deli area are handled under sanitary conditions and are not adulterated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) (see 21 U.S.C. 623(d) and 464(e)). While these practices are specifically designed to control Lm, they also may help control other foodborne pathogens that may be introduced into the retail deli environment and other facilities where consumers take possession of food.

1 The FDA 2013 Food Code is a model to assist food control jurisdictions at all levels of the government by providing them with a scientifically sound technical and legal basis for regulating food service, retail food stores, or food vending operations. For additional information on the FDA Food Code visit the FDA Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/default.htm.

Final Guidance

The final guidance is posted at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/compliance-guides-index.

FSIS updated the guidance to replace the previous version of the document which was issued and announced in the Federal Register (79 FR 22082, April 21, 2014). FSIS updated this guidance based on comments received during the public comment period which closed on June 20, 2014. FSIS made the following changes to the guidance in response to comments: Clarified that food processing equipment should be disassembled during cleaning and sanitizing, added a recommendation that retailers scrub surfaces during cleaning to prevent biofilm formation, and clarified that retailers should rotate (change) sanitizers to help prevent Lm from establishing niches in the environment and forming biofilms. The response to comments section below contains a more detailed summary of the comments and FSIS's responses to those comments. Although comments will no longer be accepted through www.regulations.gov on this guidance document, FSIS will update this document as necessary should new information become available.

Response to Comments

FSIS received six comments on the “FSIS Best Practices Guidance for Controlling Lm in Retail Delicatessens” (FSIS Retail Lm Guideline). The comments were from a meat-processing company, a trade organization that represents retail stores, two companies that provide sanitation services, one company that produces antimicrobial agents, and one trade organization that represents meat-processing companies. The following is a summary of the comments that were received and FSIS's responses to the comments.

Comment: Several commenters supported FSIS issuing the Retail Lm Guideline and recommended that FSIS issue other guidelines that retailers and food service operators can use. One commenter stated that the hazard of Lm does not change with production at a smaller facility and recommended that delis use the FSIS Compliance Guideline: “Controlling Lm in Post-lethality Exposed Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Products” (FSIS Listeria Guideline). The FSIS Listeria Guideline is posted at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/d3373299-50e6-47d6-a577-e74a1e549fde/Controlling-Lm-RTE-Guideline.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

Response: FSIS agrees that it is important to provide guidance for retailers and may issue additional guidelines as needed. While the FSIS Listeria Guideline for industry discussed in the preceding paragraph provides useful information about controlling Lm in federally inspected establishments, it does not provide information for deli operators. Because the requirements, processing conditions, and practices are different at retail than in processing facilities, issuing this separate guideline provides the specific information retailers can use to control Lm in the deli area.

Comment: Three commenters questioned whether the recommendation to rotate sanitizers to help prevent Lm from developing resistance to sanitizers and forming biofilms was necessary. One commenter stated that there is no scientific evidence that Lm develops resistance to sanitizers. The commenters recommended that retailers focus on removing the biofilm during the washing step and not the sanitizing step.

Response: Research has shown that Lm may become resistant to chlorine and other sanitizers,2 and several industry guidelines recommend rotating sanitizers.3 4 5 6 Therefore, in the guidance, FSIS continues to recommend this practice to help prevent Lm from establishing niches in the environment and forming biofilms. FSIS agrees with the commenters that biofilm formation is a concern in the deli environment and should be addressed during the cleaning step. To address this concern, FSIS has added a new recommendation to scrub surfaces during cleaning to prevent biofilm formation.

3 Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), College of Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Research and Cooperative Extension. Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Small Meat and Poultry Establishments, 2003.http://extension.psu.edu/food/safety/other-topics/controlling-listeria/Cotrolling-Listeria-2.pdf/view (Sampling for Lm, rotating sanitizers).

Comment: One commenter recommended that FSIS compliance investigators treat the best practices as guidance and not regulatory requirements when performing in-commerce surveillance at retail. The commenter requested that FSIS instruct its compliance investigators that the best practices are recommendations and not requirements. The commenter also recommended that compliance investigators provide the retail store management with FSIS guidance and other guidance documents that are available if they determine that store management is not aware of Listeria control actions.

Response: FSIS agrees that the guidance represents FSIS's best practices recommendations and does not represent requirements that retailers must meet. FSIS issued instructions to its compliance investigators to make them aware that this guidance did not include requirements. FSIS is not aware of any instance in which compliance investigators have enforced FSIS guidance as though it were a regulatory requirement. FSIS is instructing its compliance investigators through training materials that they should inform retailers that the guidance is available on the FSIS Web site. Retailers are required by the FMIA and PPIA to maintain sanitary conditions and otherwise not produce adulterated or misbranded product. The guidance provides actions retailers can take to help ensure that they are meeting the requirements of the FMIA and PPIA. Retailers also should be aware that the recommendations in the guideline, especially those based on the 2013 FDA Food Code, may be requirements in State, local, or Tribal regulations.

Comment: One commenter stated that it is important to disassemble equipment when cleaning to find hard-to-reach areas where Lm can hide. The commenter stated that FSIS should amend the recommendation to clean and sanitize RTE food-processing equipment every four hours to include recommendations to disassemble the equipment during cleaning.

Response: FSIS agrees that it is important to disassemble equipment (e.g., slicers) when cleaning every four hours as recommended by the 2013 FDA Food Code and has clarified this information in the guidance.

USDA Nondiscrimination Statement

No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

How To File a Complaint of Discrimination

To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

This notice informs the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), in accordance with section 491 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended, and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. This notice also provides a list of other standard-setting activities of Codex, including commodity standards, guidelines, codes of practice, and revised texts. This notice, which covers Codex activities during the time periods from June 1, 2014, to May 31, 2015, and June 1, 2015, to May 31, 2016, seeks comments on standards under consideration and recommendations for new standards.

ADDRESSES:

FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions at that site for submitting comments.

Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2015-0010. Comments received in response to this docket will be made available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://www.regulations.gov.

Please state that your comments refer to Codex and, if your comments relate to specific Codex committees, please identify the committee(s) in your comments and submit a copy of your comments to the delegate from that particular committee.

Docket: For access to background documents or comments received, visit the FSIS Docket Room at Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW., Room 8-164, Washington, DC 20250-3700, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. A complete list of U.S. delegates and alternate delegates can be found in Attachment 2 of this notice.

For information pertaining to particular committees, contact the delegate of that committee. Documents pertaining to Codex and specific committee agendas are accessible via the Internet at http://www.codexalimentarius.org/meetings-reports/en/. The U.S. Codex Office also maintains a Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/us-codex-alimentarius.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established on January 1, 1995, as the common international institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its members in matters related to the Uruguay Round Trade Agreements. The WTO is the successor organization to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). United States membership in the WTO was approved and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Uruguay Round Agreements) was signed into law by the President on December 8, 1994, Public Law 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809. The Uruguay Round Agreements became effective, with respect to the United States, on January 1, 1995. The Uruguay Round Agreements amended the Trade Agreements Act of 1979. Pursuant to section 491 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended, the President is required to designate an agency to be “responsible for informing the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization.” (19 U.S. C. 2578) The main international standard-setting organizations are Codex, the World Organisation for Animal Health, and the International Plant Protection Convention. The President, pursuant to Proclamation No. 6780 of March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15845), designated the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the agency responsible for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization. The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated to the Office of Food Safety the responsibility to inform the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex. The Office of Food Safety has, in turn, assigned the responsibility for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex to the U.S. Codex Office.

Codex was created in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the principal international organization for establishing standards for food. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers, ensure fair practices in the food trade, and promote coordination of food standards work undertaken by international governmental and nongovernmental organizations. In the United States, U.S. Codex activities are managed and carried out by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC); and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

As the agency responsible for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex, the Office of Food Safety publishes this notice in the Federal Register annually. Attachment 1 (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Activities of Codex) sets forth the following information:

1. The SPS standards under consideration or planned for consideration; and

2. For each SPS standard specified:

a. A description of the consideration or planned consideration of the standard;

b. Whether the United States is participating or plans to participate in the consideration of the standard;

c. The agenda for United States participation, if any; and

d. The agency responsible for representing the United States with respect to the standard.

TO OBTAIN COPIES OF THE STANDARDS LISTED IN ATTACHMENT 1, PLEASE CONTACT THE CODEX DELEGATE OR THE U.S. CODEX OFFICE.

This notice also solicits public comment on standards that are currently under consideration or planned for consideration and recommendations for new standards. The delegate, in conjunction with the responsible agency, will take the comments received into account in participating in the consideration of the standards and in proposing matters to be considered by Codex.

The U.S. delegate will facilitate public participation in the United States Government's activities relating to Codex Alimentarius. The U.S. delegate will maintain a list of individuals, groups, and organizations that have expressed an interest in the activities of the Codex committees and will disseminate information regarding U.S. delegation activities to interested parties. This information will include the status of each agenda item; the U.S. Government's position or preliminary position on the agenda items; and the time and place of planning meetings and debriefing meetings following Codex committee sessions. In addition, the U.S. Codex Office makes much of the same information available through its Web page, http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/us-codex-alimentarius. If you would like to access or receive information about specific committees, please visit the Web page or notify the appropriate U.S. delegate or the U.S. Codex Office, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700 (uscodex@fsis.usda.gov).

The information provided in Attachment 1 describes the status of Codex standard-setting activities by the Codex Committees for the time periods from June 1, 2014, to May 31, 2015, and June 1, 2015, to May 31, 2016. Attachment 2 provides a list of U.S. Codex Officials (including U.S. delegates and alternate delegates). A list of forthcoming Codex sessions may be found at: http://www.codexalimentarius.org/meetings-reports/en/.

Additional Public Notification

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission will convene for its 38th Session July 6-11, 2015, in Geneva, Switzerland. At that time, it will consider standards, codes of practice, and related matters forwarded to the Commission by the general subject committees, commodity committees, and regional coordinating committees for adoption as Codex standards and guidance. The Commission will also consider the implementation status of the Codex Strategic Plan, the management of the Trust Fund for the Participation of Developing Countries and Countries in Transition in the work of the Codex Alimentarius and a proposal for a successor initiative to the Trust Fund, papers prepared by the Secretariat on Codex Work Management and Functioning of the Executive Committee and Revitalization of the FAO/WHO Coordinating Committees, as well as financial and budgetary issues.

Prior to the Commission meeting, the Executive Committee will meet at its 17th Session, June 30-July 3, 2015. It is composed of the chairperson; vice-chairpersons; seven members elected from the Commission from each of the following geographic regions: Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Near East, North America, and South-West Pacific; and regional coordinators from the six regional committees. Canada is the elected representative from North America; the United States will participate as an advisor. The Executive Committee will conduct a critical review of the elaboration of Codex standards and will consider the implementation status of the Codex Strategic Plan, the management of the Trust Fund for the Participation of Developing Countries and Countries in Transition in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius and a proposal for a successor initiative to the Trust Fund, papers prepared by the Secretariat on Codex Work Management and Functioning of the Executive Committee and Revitalization of the FAO/WHO Coordinating Committees, as well as financial and budgetary issues.

Responsible Agency: USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods

The Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF) determines priorities for the consideration of residues of veterinary drugs in foods and recommends Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for veterinary drugs. The Committee also develops codes of practice, as may be required, and considers methods of sampling and analysis for the determination of veterinary drug residues in food. A veterinary drug is defined as any substance applied or administered to any food producing animal, such as meat or milk producing animals, poultry, fish or bees, whether used for therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic purposes, or for modification of physiological functions or behavior.

A Codex Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) for residues of veterinary drugs is the maximum concentration of residue resulting from the use of a veterinary drug (expressed in mg/kg or ug/kg on a fresh weight basis) that is recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be permitted or recognized as acceptable in or on a food. Residues of a veterinary drug include the parent compounds or their metabolites in any edible portion of the animal product, and include residues of associated impurities of the veterinary drug concerned. An MRL is based on the type and amount of residue considered to be without any toxicological hazard for human health as expressed by the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) or on the basis of a temporary ADI that utilizes an additional safety factor. The MRL also takes into account other relative public health risks as well as food technological aspects.

When establishing an MRL, consideration is also given to residues that occur in food of plant origin or the environment. Furthermore, the MRL may be reduced to be consistent with official recommended or authorized usage, approved by national authorities, of the veterinary drugs under practical conditions.

An Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is an estimate made by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the amount of a veterinary drug, expressed on a body weight basis, which can be ingested daily in food over a lifetime without appreciable health risk.

The Committee met for its 22nd Session in San José, Costa Rica, from April 27-May 1, 2015. The relevant document is REP15/RVDF. The following items are to be considered for adoption by the 38th Session of the Commission in July 2015:

• Draft RMR for gentian violet• Proposed draft MRLs for ivermectin (cattle muscle) and lasalocid sodium (chicken, turkey, quail and pheasant tissues)• Discussion paper on the establishment of a rating system to establish priority for CCRVDF work (eWG chaired by France)• Discussion paper on unintended presence of residues of veterinary drugs in food commodities resulting from the carry-over of drug residues into feed (eWG chaired by the United States and co-chaired by Canada)• Global survey to provide information to the CCRVDF to move compounds from the database on countries needs for MRLs to the JECFA Priority List (eWG co-chaired by the United States and Costa Rica)• Database on countries needs for MRLs

The Committee recommended that work on the following items be considered for discontinuation:

The Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods (CCCF) establishes or endorses permitted maximum levels (ML) and, where necessary, revises existing guidelines levels for contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed; prepares priority lists of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants for risk assessment by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; considers and elaborates methods of analysis and sampling for the determination of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed; considers and elaborates standards or codes of practice for related subjects; and considers other matters assigned to it by the Commission in relation to contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed.

The Committee convened for its 9th Session in New Delhi, India, March 16-20, 2015. The relevant document is REP15/CF. The following items are to be considered for adoption by the 38th Session of the Commission in July 2015:

• Draft maximum levels for deoxynivalenol (DON) in cereal-based foods for infants and young children; in flour, meal, semolina and flakes derived from wheat, maize or barley; and in cereal grains (wheat, maize and barley) destined for further processing, including sampling plans and performance criteria for methods of analysis

To be considered for adoption at Step 5:

• Proposed draft maximum level for inorganic arsenic in husked rice• Proposed draft revision of the Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Mycotoxin Contamination in Cereals (CAC/RCP 51-2003)

The Committee will continue working on:

• Proposed draft maximum level for total aflatoxins in ready to eat peanuts including sampling plan• Proposed draft maximum levels for lead in selected fruits and vegetables (fresh and processed)• Proposed draft maximum level for cadmium in chocolate and cocoa-derived products• Proposed draft Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Arsenic Contamination in Rice• Proposed draft annexes to the Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Mycotoxin Contamination in Cereals (CAC/RCP 51-2003)• Proposed draft Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Mycotoxin Contamination in Spices• Ergot Alkaloids• Maximum levels for Methylmercury in fish• Maximum levels for mycotoxins in spices• Priority list of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants proposed for evaluation by JECFA• Submission and use of data from Global Environment Monitoring Systems/Food• Approaches for phasing-in of lower maximum levels for contaminants• Radionuclides in foods

Responsible Agencies: HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Codex Committee on Food Additives

The Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) establishes or endorses acceptable maximum levels (MLs) for individual food additives; prepares a priority list of food additives for risk assessment by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA); assigns functional classes to individual food additives; recommends specifications of identity and purity for food additives for adoption by the Codex Alimentarius Commission; considers methods of analysis for the determination of additives in food; and considers and elaborates standards or codes of practice for related subjects such as the labeling of food additives when sold as such. The 47th Session of the Committee met in Xi'an, China, March 23-27, 2015. The relevant document is REP15/FA. Immediately prior to the Plenary Session, there was a two-day physical Working Group on the General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) chaired by the United States. The following items will be considered by the 38th Session of the Commission in July 2015:

To be considered for approval:

• Proposal for additions and changes to the priority-list of substances proposed for evaluation by JECFA

To be considered for adoption:

• Revised food additives section of the Standard for Bouillons and Consommés (Codex Stan 117-1981)• Revised food additives provisions of GSFA food category 12.5 (Soups and broths) and its sub-categories• Corrections to food additive provisions of GSFA related to the alignments of the five meat commodity standards

To be considered at Step 8 and 5/8:

• Draft and proposed draft food additive provisions of the GSFA

To be considered at Step 5/8:

• Proposed draft Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives• Proposed draft amendments to the International Numbering System (INS) for Food Additives (CAC/GL 36-1989)

The Committee will continue working on:

• Proposed draft food additive provisions of the GSFA○ Information and justification on the use of nisin (INS 234) in food category 08.3.2 (Heat-treated processed comminuted meat, poultry, and game products) in general, and specifically in products conforming to the corresponding commodity standards (electronic Working Group (eWG) led by the United States)○ Outstanding food additive provisions in Table 1 and 2 in food categories 01.2 through 08.4, with the exclusion of food categories 04.1.2.4, 04.2.2.4, 04.2.2.5, 04.2.2.6, 05.1.1, 05.1.3 and 05.1.4 (from the 47th CCFA, Agenda Item 5(c))• Proposed draft revision of the food category 01.1 (Milk and dairy-based drinks) and its sub-categories of the GSFA (eWG led by New Zealand)• Alignment of the food additive provisions of commodity standards and relevant provisions of the GSFA (eWG led by Australia and the United States)• Discussion paper of the use of specific food additives in the production of wine (eWG led by France and Australia)• Discussion paper on secondary additives (eWG led by the European Union)• Proposed draft revision of Sections 4.1.c and 5.1.c of the General Standard for the Labeling of Food Additives When Sold as Such (CODEX STAN 107-1981) (eWG led by the United States)• Amendments to the INS for food additives• Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives (80th JECFA)• Information document on the GSFA• Information document on the food additive provisions in commodity standards

The Committee also agreed to convene a physical Working Group on the GSFA immediately preceding the 48th session of CCFA to be chaired by the United States that will discuss:

• Outstanding provisions related to food additive provisions in Table 1 and 2 in food categories 01.2 through 08.4, information and justification on the use of nisin (INS 234) in food category 08.3.2 (Heat-treated processed comminuted meat, poultry, and game products)• Comments submitted in response to CL 2015/9-FA on the revision of the provision for quillaia extracts (INS 999(i), (ii)) in food category 14.1.4 (Water-based flavored drinks, including “sport,” “energy,” or “electrolyte” drinks and particulate drinks• Comments submitted in response to CL 2015/9-FA on proposals for the use of paprika extract (INS 160c(ii)) for inclusion in Tables 1 and 2 of the GSFA• New proposals and proposed revisions of food additive provisions in the GSFA

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues

The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) is responsible for establishing maximum limits for pesticide residues in specific food items or in groups of food; establishing maximum limits for pesticide residues in certain animal feeding stuffs moving in international trade where this is justified for reasons of protection of human health; preparing priority lists of pesticides for evaluation by the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR); considering methods of sampling and analysis for the determination of pesticide residues in food and feed; considering other matters in relation to the safety of food and feed containing pesticide residues; and establishing maximum limits for environmental and industrial contaminants showing chemical or other similarity to pesticides in specific food items or groups of food.

The 47th Session of the Committee met in Beijing, China, April 13-18, 2015. The relevant document is REP15/PR. The following items will be considered at the 38th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in July 2015:

To be considered for adoption:

• Guidance to Facilitate the Establishment of MRLs for Pesticides for Minor Crops including Appendix on Methodology to Assign Crops into Consumption Categories (for inclusion as an annex to the Risk Analysis Principles Applied by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues

To be considered for adoption at Step 5/8:

• Proposed draft MRLs for pesticides

To be considered for adoption at Step 5:

• Proposed draft MRLs for pesticides

The Committee will continue working on:

• Draft MRLs for pesticides• Proposed draft MRLs for pesticides• Draft revision to the Classification of Food and Feed (vegetable commodity groups: Group 015-Pulses)• Proposed draft revision to the Classification of Food and Feed (other vegetable commodity groups: Group 014 Legume vegetables)• Proposed draft revision to the Classification of Food and Feed:1. Group 011—Fruiting vegetables, cucurbits2. Group 020—Grasses of cereal grains3. Group 021—Grasses for sugars or syrup production4. Group 024—Seeds for beverages and sweets• Proposed draft tables on examples of selection of representative commodities (for inclusion in the principles and guidance for the selection of representative commodities for the extrapolation of maximum residue limits for pesticides for commodity groups)• Proposed draft Guidance on Performance Criteria for Methods of Analysis for the Determination of Pesticide Residues• Establishment of Codex schedules and priority list of pesticides for evaluation by JMPR• Discussion paper on the impact of the relocation of Vigna spp. under the Beans (dry) on the CXLs for Peas (dry)

Responsible Agencies: EPA; USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling

The Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS) defines the criteria appropriate to Codex Methods of Analysis and Sampling; serves as a coordinating body for Codex with other international groups working on methods of analysis and sampling and quality assurance systems for laboratories; specifies, on the basis of final recommendations submitted to it by the bodies referred to above, reference methods of analysis and sampling appropriate to Codex standards which are generally applicable to a number of foods; considers, amends if necessary, and endorses as appropriate, methods of analysis and sampling proposed by Codex commodity committees, except for methods of analysis and sampling for residues of pesticides or veterinary drugs in food, the assessment of microbiological quality and safety in food, and the assessment of specifications for food additives; elaborates sampling plans and procedures, as may be required; considers specific sampling and analysis problems submitted to it by the Commission or any of its Committees; and defines procedures, protocols, guidelines or related texts for the assessment of food laboratory proficiency, as well as quality assurance systems for laboratories.

The 36th Session of the Committee met in Budapest, Hungary, February 23-27, 2015. The relevant document is REP15/MAS. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015:

To be considered for adoption:

• Methods of Analysis and Sampling in Codex Standards at different steps

To be considered for adoption at Step 5/8:

• Principles for the Use of Sampling and Testing in International Food Trade—Proposed Draft Explanatory Notes

The Committee will continue working on:

• Criteria for endorsement of biological methods to detect chemical of concern• Practical Examples (Information Document)• Procedures for determining uncertainty of measurement results• Development of procedures/guidelines for determining equivalency to Type I methods• Criteria approach for methods which use a “sum of components”• Review and update of methods in Codex Stan 234-1999• Follow-up on methods of analysis and sampling plans• Sampling in Codex standards

The Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems is responsible for developing principles and guidelines for food import and export inspection and certification systems, with a view to harmonizing methods and procedures that protect the health of consumers, ensure fair trading practices, and facilitate international trade in foodstuffs; developing principles and guidelines for the application of measures by the competent authorities of exporting and importing countries to provide assurance, where necessary, that foodstuffs comply with requirements, especially statutory health requirements; developing guidelines for the utilization, as and when appropriate, of quality assurance systems to ensure that foodstuffs conform with requirements and promote the recognition of these systems in facilitating trade in food products under bilateral/multilateral arrangements by countries; developing guidelines and criteria with respect to format, declarations, and language of such official certificates as countries may require with a view towards international harmonization; making recommendations for information exchange in relation to food import/export control; consulting as necessary with other international groups working on matters related to food inspection and certification systems; and considering other matters assigned to it by the Commission in relation to food inspection and certification systems.

The 21st Session of the Committee convened in Brisbane, Australia, October 13-17, 2014. The relevant document is REP15/FICS. There are no items to be considered for adoption by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015. The Committee will continue working on the following items:

• Draft principles and/or guidelines for the exchange of information (including questionnaires) between countries to support food import and export• Draft guidance for monitoring the performance of National Food Control Systems• Revision of the Principles and Guidelines for the Exchange of Information in Food Safety Emergency Situations (CAC/GL 19-1995)• Revision of the Guidelines for the Exchange of Information between Countries on Rejections of Imported Food (CAC/GL 25-1997)• Discussion paper on system comparability/equivalence• Discussion paper on the possibilities of the use of electronic certificates by competent authorities as well as the migration to paperless certification

Responsible Agencies: USDA/FSIS; HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Codex Committee on Food Labelling

The Codex Committee on Food Labelling drafts provisions on labeling applicable to all foods; considers, amends, and endorses draft specific provisions on labeling prepared by the Codex Committees drafting standards, codes of practice, and guidelines; and studies specific labeling problems assigned by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Committee also studies problems associated with the advertisement of food with particular reference to claims and misleading descriptions.

The Committee met for its 42nd Session in Rome, Italy, October 21-24, 2014. The relevant document is REP15/FL. There are no items to be considered for adoption by the Commission at its 38th Session (July 2015). The Committee plans to continue work on the following items:

• Revision of the Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labeling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods: Organic Aquaculture• Revision of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods: Date Marking• Discussion paper on the labelling of non-retail containers• Discussion paper on issues related to Internet sales of food• Proposal to revise the General Guidelines for the Use of the Term “Halal” (CAC/GL 24-1997)

Responsible Agencies: HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Codex Committee on Food Hygiene

The Codex Committee on Food Hygiene:

• Develops basic provisions on food hygiene applicable to all food or to specific food types;• Considers and amends or endorses provisions on food hygiene contained in Codex commodity standards and codes of practice developed by other Codex commodity committees;• Considers specific food hygiene problems assigned to it by the Commission;• Suggests and prioritizes areas where there is a need for microbiological risk assessment at the international level and develops questions to be addressed by the risk assessors; and• Considers microbiological risk management matters in relation to food hygiene and in relation to FAO/WHO risk assessments.

The Committee convened for its 46th Session in Lima, Peru, November 17-21, 2014. The relevant document is REP 15/FH. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015:

To be considered for adoption:

• Amendments to the hygiene sections in meat commodity standards

To be considered for adoption at Step 8:

• Draft Guidelines for the Control of Trichinella spp. In Meat of Suidae

To be considered for adoption at Step 5/8:

• Proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Low-Moisture Foods

The Committee will continue working on:

• Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Control of Nontyphoidal Salmonella spp. in Beef and Pork Meat• Proposed Draft Guidelines on the Application of General Principles of Food Hygiene to the Control of Foodborne Parasites• Discussion paper on the need to revise the Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 53-2003)• Discussion paper on the revision of the General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1-1969) and its Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points annex• Proposed annexes to the Code of Hygienic Practice for Low-Moisture Foods• New Work Proposals/Forward Work Plan

Responsible Agencies: HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables

The Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CCFFV) is responsible for elaborating worldwide standards and codes of practice as may be appropriate for fresh fruits and vegetables; for consulting as necessary, with other international organizations in the standards development process to avoid duplication.

The 19th Session of the Committee will meet in Mexico, October 5-9, 2015. The Committee will continue discussing the following items:

The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) is responsible for studying nutrition issues referred to it by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Committee also drafts general provisions, as appropriate, on nutritional aspects of all foods and develops standards, guidelines, or related texts for foods for special dietary uses in cooperation with other committees where necessary; considers, amends if necessary, and endorses provisions on nutritional aspects proposed for inclusion in Codex standards, guidelines, and related texts.

The Committee convened for its 36th Session in Bali, Indonesia, November 24-28, 2014. The reference document is REP 15/NFSDU. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015:

To be considered for adoption:

• The amendments to the annex of the Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling (CAC/GL2-1985)• Proposed draft revision of the List of Food Additives in Codex Stan 72-1981• Proposal for inclusion of zinc citrates in the Advisory Lists of Nutrient Compounds for Use in Foods for Special Dietary Uses Intended for Infants and Young Children (CAC/GL10-1979)• Draft amendment to the Standard for Foods for Special Dietary Use for Persons Intolerant to Gluten (Codex STAN 118-1979), to add the term “Khorasan wheat”

To be considered for adoption at Step 8:

• Draft revision of the General Principles for the Addition of Essential Nutrients to Foods

The Fish and Fishery Products Committee (CCFFP) is responsible for elaborating standards for fresh, frozen and otherwise processed fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. The Committee will convene its 34th Session in Alesund, Norway, October 19-24, 2015. The Committee will continue working on the following agenda items:

• Draft Code of Practice for Processing of Fish Sauce• Proposed draft Code of Practice on the Processing of Fresh and Quick Frozen Raw Scallop Products (section on sturgeon caviar)• Proposed food additive provisions in the Standard for Fish and Fishery Products• Discussion paper on Nitrogen Factors (amendments to section 7.4 of the Standard for Quick Frozen Fish Sticks (Fish Fingers), Fish Portions and Fish Fillets- Breaded or in Batter (Codex Stan 166-1989)• Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (optional final product requirements for commodities/appendix on Map)• Discussion paper on histamineOther Business and Future Work• New work proposal on a Standard for Fresh Chilled Pirarucu Fillet or Whole Fish• Discussion paper on the future of the Committee

Responsible Agencies: HHS/FDA; USDC/NOAA/NMFS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Codex Committee on Fats and Oils

The Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (CCFO) is responsible for elaborating worldwide standards for fats and oils of animal, vegetable, and marine origin, including margarine and olive oil.

The 24th session of the Committee convened in Melaka, Malaysia, February 9-13, 2015. The reference document is REP 15/FO. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015:

To be considered for adoption:

• Amendments to Appendix 2 “List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes” of the Code of Practice for the Storage and Transport of Edible Fats and Oils in Bulk (CAC/RCP 36-1987)• Reference to Acceptance/Voluntary Application in Codex Standards

To be considered for adoption at Step 5:

• Proposed draft Standard for Fish Oils

The Committee will continue working on:

• Amendments to Appendix 2 “List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes” of the Code of Practice for the Storage and Transport of Edible Fats and Oils in Bulk (CAC/RCP 36-1987)• Addition of Palm Oil with High Oleic Acid (OxG)• Revision of Fatty Acid Composition and Other Quality Factors of Peanut Oil• Revision of the Limit for Campesterol• Revision of Limits of Oleic and Linoleic Acids in Sunflower Seed Oils• Inclusion of provisions for Walnut Oil, Almond Oil, Hazelnut Oil, Pistachio Oil, Flaxseed Oil, and Avocado Oil• Replacement of Acid Value with Free Fatty Acids for Virgin Palm Oils• Inclusion of Quality Parameters for Crude Rice Bran Oil• Discussion paper on the amendment of the Standard for Named Animal Fats (Codex Stan 211-1999) Inclusion of Unrefined Edible Tallow

To be recommended for discontinuation:

• Inclusion of provisions for High Oleic Soybean Oil• Inclusion of provisions for High Stearic High Oleic Acids of Sunflower Seed Oils• Contents of delta-7-stigmastenol• Discussion paper on the amendment of the Code of Practice for the Storage and Transport of Edible Fats and Oils in Bulk (CAC/RCP 36-1987)• Discussion paper on the amendment of the Code of Practice for the Storage and Transport of Edible Fats and Oils in Bulk

Responsible Agencies: HHS/FDA; USDA/ARS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables

The Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables (CCPFV) is responsible for elaborating worldwide standards and related texts for all types of processed fruits and vegetables including but not limited to canned, dried, and frozen products, as well as fruit and vegetable juices and nectars.

The Committee convened its 27th Session in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 8-12, 2014. The reference document is REP 15/PFV. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015:

• No additional work is ongoing in this Committee. It will again be adjourned sine die once the work on the Standard for Non-Centrifugated Dehydrated Sugar Cane Juice has been adopted

Responsible Agencies: HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

Certain Codex Commodity Committees

Several Codex Alimentarius Commodity Committees have adjourned sine die. The following Committees fall into this category:

• Cereals, Pulses and Legumes

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

• Cocoa Products and Chocolate

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

• Meat Hygiene

Responsible Agency: USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

• Natural Mineral Waters

Responsible Agency: HHS/FDA.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

• Vegetable Proteins

Responsible Agency: USDA/ARS.

U.S. Participation: Yes.

FAO/WHO Regional Coordinating Committees

The FAO/WHO Regional Coordinating Committees define the problems and needs of the regions concerning food standards and food control; promote within the Committee contacts for the mutual exchange of information on proposed regulatory initiatives and problems arising from food control and stimulate the strengthening of food control infrastructures; recommend to the Commission the development of worldwide standards for products of interest to the region, including products considered by the Committees to have an international market potential in the future; develop regional standards for food products moving exclusively or almost exclusively in intra-regional trade; draw the attention of the Commission to any aspects of the Commission's work of particular significance to the region; promote coordination of all regional food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations within each region; exercise a general coordinating role for the region and such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Commission; and promote the use of Codex standards and related texts by members.

There are six regional coordinating committees:

Coordinating Committee for AfricaCoordinating Committee for AsiaCoordinating Committee for EuropeCoordinating Committee for Latin America and the CaribbeanCoordinating Committee for the Near EastCoordinating Committee for North America and the South West PacificCoordinating Committee for Africa

The Committee (CCAfrica) met for its 21st Session in Yaoundé, Cameroon, January 27-30, 2015. The reference document is REP 15/AFRICA. There are no items to be considered for adoption by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015.

The Committee (CCAsia) met for its 19th Session in Tokyo, Japan, November 3-7, 2014. The reference document is REP 15/ASIA. The following items are to be considered for adoption by the 38th Session of the Commission in July 2015:

To be considered for adoption at Step 8:

• Draft Regional Standard for Non-Fermented Soybean Products

To be considered for adoption:

• Amendments to sections “Food Additives” and “Methods of Analysis and Sampling” of the Regional Standard for Tempe

The Committee (CCEurope) convened its 29th Session in The Hague, the Netherlands, September 30-October 04, 2014. The reference document is REP 15/EURO. There are no items for adoption by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015.

The Committee will continue working on:

• Regional Strategic Plan for CCEURO.

To be recommended for discontinuation:

• Proposed draft Regional Standard for Ayran.

Responsible Agency: USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes (as observer).

Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean

The Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean (CCLAC) convened its 19th Session in San José, Costa Rica, from November 10-14, 2014. The reference document is REP 15/LAC. There are no items for adoption by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015.

The Committee will continue working on:

• Proposed draft Regional Standard for Yacon.

Responsible Agency: USDA/FSIS.

U.S. Participation: Yes (as observer).

Coordinating Committee for the Near East

The Committee (CCNEA) convened its 8th Session in Rome, Italy, June 1-5, 2015. There are no items to be considered for adoption by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015.

Coordinating Committee for North America and the South West Pacific (CCNASWP)

The Committee (CCNASWP) convened its 13th Session in Kokopo, Papua New Guinea, September 23-26, 2014. The reference document is REP 15/NASWP. There are no items to be considered for adoption by the Commission at its 38th Session in July 2015.

The Committee will continue working on:

• Proposed draft Standard for Fermented Noni Juice• Implementation Status of the Strategic Plan for CCNAWSWP 2014-2019• Discussion paper on kava• Areas of new work of interest to the Region

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the West Virginia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 10:00 a.m. EDT on Friday, June 26, 2015, by teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss plans for a future public briefing meeting on the civil rights concerns under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) about the treatment of persons with mental health disabilities in the West Virginia Criminal Justice System and West Virginia Mental Health Court.

Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call number 1-888-510-1765 and conference call code: 8558900#. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number.

Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the operator with the conference call number 1-888-510-1765 and conference call ID code 8558900#.

Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, July 27, 2015. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at ero@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=2681 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY:

On December 5, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published its Preliminary Results in the 2012-2013 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from the People's Republic of China (PRC).1 The period of review (“POR”) is November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013. This review covers four companies: Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co. Ltd. (“Green Packing”) and Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. (“Wanhua”), which were subject to individual examination, as well as Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd. (“Fuwei Films”) and Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd., (“Dongfang”).2 Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to our margin calculations for Wanhua. The final dumping margins for this review are listed in the “Final Results” section below.

On December 5, 2014, the Department published its Preliminary Results in this review. We received case briefs from Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. and SKC, Inc. (collectively “Petitioners”), Green Packing, and Wanhua on January 14, 2015.3 On January 26, 2015, Petitioners and Wanhua submitted rebuttal briefs.4 On March 23, 2015, Green Packing and Wanhua resubmitted case briefs and Petitioners resubmitted its rebuttal brief 5 to redact certain untimely new factual information.

3See Letter from Petitioners to the Secretary of Commerce, “Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of China: Petitioners' Case Brief,” dated January 14, 2015. Also, on January 14, 2015, the Department received a letter in lieu of a case brief from Terphane, Inc., in which Terphane, Inc. states that it supports the Department preliminary results and arguments made by Petitioners in Petitioners' case brief. See Wanhua's and Green Packing's resubmitted case briefs dated March 23, 2015.

4 See Letter from Wanhua to the Secretary of Commerce, “Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film from the People's Republic of China; A-570-924; Rebuttal Brief,” dated January 26, 2015 (“Wanhua Rebuttal Brief”). Also, on January 26, 2015, the Department received a letter in lieu of a rebuttal brief from Terphane, Inc., in which Terphane, Inc. states that it supports all arguments made by Petitioners in Petitioners' case brief. See Petitioners resubmitted rebuttal brief dated March 23, 2015.

5See Letter from Green Packing to the Secretary of Commerce “Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film from China,” dated March 23, 2015; see also letter from Wanhua to the Secretary of Commerce, “Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film from the People's Republic of China; A-570-924; Resubmission of Case Brief,” dated March 23, 2015; see also letter from Petitioners to the Secretary of Commerce, “Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of China: Resubmission of Petitioners' Rebuttal Brief,” dated March 23, 2015.

Scope of the Order

The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or co-extruded. PET film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

For the full text of the scope of the order, see Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2012-2013 Administrative Review,” (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), dated concurrently with this notice.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we revised the margin calculations for Wanhua. Specifically, we corrected two errors in our calculations by deducting marine insurance expenses 6 and value added taxes 7 from Wanhua's U.S. sales prices, both of which we inadvertently failed to deduct in the Preliminary Results.

6See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.

7See Memorandum from Jonathan Hill, International Trade Compliance Analyst to Howard Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operation, Office IV “Analysis for the Final Results of the 2012-2013 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from the People's Republic of China: Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd.,” dated concurrently with this notice.

Final Determination of No Shipments

For these final results, the Department continues 8 to find that Fuwei Films and Dongfang did not have any reviewable entries during the POR.9

The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of these final results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are calculating importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review. For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent), the Department will calculate importer- (or customer)-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. Where appropriate, we calculated a per-unit rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against the entered quantity of the subject merchandise.10 We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate (i.e., 76.72 percent).11 Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed for each exporter in the table in the “Final Results” section of this notice; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate previously established for the PRC-wide entity; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Disclosure

We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these final results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

Administrative Protective Order (“APO”)

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing these results of administrative review and publishing notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Laurie Mease, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, Telephone: 202-482-2043, Email: Laurie.Mease@trade.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Abstract

Title III, Subtitle B, Section 321 through Section 328 of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (the “Act”) [Pub. L. 112-42] implements the textile and apparel safeguard provisions, provided for in Article 3.1 of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (the “Agreement”). This safeguard mechanism applies when, as a result of the elimination of a customs duty under the Agreement, a Colombian textile or apparel article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that article, and under such conditions as to cause serious damage or actual threat thereof to a U.S. industry producing a like or directly competitive article. In these circumstances, Article 3.1 permits the United States to increase duties on the imported article from Colombia to a level that does not exceed the lesser of the prevailing U.S. normal trade relations (NTR)/most-favored-nation (MFN) duty rate for the article or the U.S. NTR/MFN duty rate in effect on the day before the Agreement entered into force.

The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Act provides that the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) will issue procedures for requesting such safeguard measures, for making its determinations under Section 322(a) of the Act, and for providing relief under section 322(b) of the Act.

In Proclamation No. 8818 (77 FR 29519, May 18, 2012), the President delegated to CITA his authority under Subtitle B of Title III of the Act with respect to textile and apparel safeguard measures.

CITA must collect information in order to determine whether a domestic textile or apparel industry is being adversely impacted by imports of these products from Colombia, thereby allowing CITA to take corrective action to protect the viability of the domestic textile industry, subject to section 322(b) of the Act.

Pursuant to Section 321(a) of the Act and Section (9) of Presidential Proclamation 8818, an interested party in the U.S. domestic textile and apparel industry may file a request for a textile and apparel safeguard action with CITA. Consistent with longstanding CITA practice in considering textile safeguard actions, CITA will consider an interested party to be an entity (which may be a trade association, firm, certified or recognized union, or group of workers) that is representative of either: (A) A domestic producer or producers of an article that is like or directly competitive with the subject Colombian textile or apparel article; or (B) a domestic producer or producers of a component used in the production of an article that is like or directly competitive with the subject Colombian textile or apparel article.

In order for a request to be considered, the requester must provide the following information in support of a claim that a textile or apparel article from Colombia is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that article, and under such conditions as to cause serious damage or actual threat thereof, to a U.S. industry producing an article that is like, or directly competitive with, the imported article: (1) Name and description of the imported article concerned; (2) import data demonstrating that imports of a Colombian origin textile or apparel article that are like or directly competitive with the articles produced by the domestic industry concerned are increasing in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that article; (3) U.S. domestic production of the like or directly competitive articles of U.S. origin indicating the nature and extent of the serious damage or actual threat thereof, along with an affirmation that to the best of the requester's knowledge, the data represent substantially all of the domestic production of the like or directly competitive article(s) of U.S. origin; (4) imports from Colombia as a percentage of the domestic market of the like or directly competitive article; and (5) all data available to the requester showing changes in productivity, utilization of capacity, inventories, exports, wages, employment, domestic prices, profits, and investment, and any other information, relating to the existence of serious damage or actual threat thereof caused by imports from Colombia to the industry producing the like or directly competitive article that is the subject of the request. To the extent that such information is not available, the requester should provide best estimates and the basis therefore.

If CITA determines that the request provides the information necessary for it to be considered, CITA will publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comments regarding the request. The comment period shall be 30 calendar days. The notice will include a summary of the request. Any interested party may submit information to rebut, clarify, or correct public comments submitted by any interested party.

CITA will make a determination on any request it considers within 60 calendar days of the close of the comment period. If CITA is unable to make a determination within 60 calendar days, it will publish a notice in the Federal Register, including the date it will make a determination.

If a determination under Section 322(b) of the Act is affirmative, CITA may provide tariff relief to a U.S. industry to the extent necessary to remedy or prevent serious damage or actual threat thereof and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic industry to import competition. The import tariff relief is effective beginning on the date that CITA's affirmative determination is published in the Federal Register.

Entities submitting requests, responses or rebuttals to CITA may submit both a public and confidential version of their submissions. If the request is accepted, the public version will be posted on the dedicated Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement textile safeguards section of the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) Web site. The confidential version of the requests, responses or rebuttals will not be shared with the public as it may contain business confidential information. Entities submitting responses or rebuttals may use the public version of the request as a basis for responses.

II. Method of Collection

When an interested party files a request for a textile and apparel safeguard action with CITA, ten copies of any such request must be provided in a paper format. If business confidential information is provided, two copies of a non-confidential version must also be provided.

III. Data

OMB Control Number: 0625-0271.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 6 (1 for Request; 5 for Comments).

Estimated Time per Response: 4 hours for a Request; and 4 hours for each Comment.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 24.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $960.

IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Laurie Mease, Office of Textiles and Apparel, Telephone: 202-482-2043, Email: Laurie.Mease@trade.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Abstract

Title II, Section 203(o) of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (the “Act”) [Public Law 112-42] implements the commercial availability provision provided for in Article 3.3 of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (the “Agreement”). The Agreement entered into force on May 15, 2012. Subject to the rules of origin in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement, pursuant to the textile provisions of the Agreement, fabric, yarn, and fiber produced in Colombia or the United States and traded between the two countries are entitled to duty-free tariff treatment. Annex 3-B of the Agreement also lists specific fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the two countries agreed are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner from producers in Colombia or the United States. The fabrics listed are commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers, which are also entitled to duty-free treatment despite not being produced in Colombia or the United States.

The list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers may be changed pursuant to the commercial availability provision in Chapter 3, Article 3.3, Paragraphs 5-7 of the Agreement. Under this provision, interested entities from Colombia or the United States have the right to request that a specific fabric, yarn, or fiber be added to, or removed from, the list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers in Annex 3-B of the Agreement.

Chapter 3, Article 3.3, paragraph 7 of the Agreement requires that the President “promptly” publish procedures for parties to exercise the right to make these requests. Section 203(o)(4) of the Act authorizes the President to establish procedures to modify the list of fabrics, yarns, or fibers not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in either the United States or Colombia as set out in Annex 3-B of the Agreement. The President delegated the responsibility for publishing the procedures and administering commercial availability requests to the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“CITA”), which issues procedures and acts on requests through the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel (“OTEXA”) (See Proclamation No. 8818, 77 FR 29519, May 18, 2012).

The intent of the U.S.-Colombia TPA Commercial Availability Procedures is to foster the use of U.S. and regional products by implementing procedures that allow products to be placed on or removed from a product list, on a timely basis, and in a manner that is consistent with normal business practice. The procedures are intended to facilitate the transmission of requests; allow the market to indicate the availability of the supply of products that are the subject of requests; make available promptly, to interested entities and the public, information regarding the requests for products and offers received for those products; ensure wide participation by interested entities and parties; allow for careful review and consideration of information provided to substantiate requests, responses and rebuttals; and provide timely public dissemination of information used by CITA in making commercial availability determinations.

CITA must collect certain information about fabric, yarn, or fiber technical specifications and the production capabilities of Colombian and U.S. textile producers to determine whether certain fabrics, yarns, or fibers are available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States or Colombia, subject to Section 203(o) of the Act.

II. Method of Collection

Participants in a commercial availability proceeding must submit public versions of their Requests, Responses or Rebuttals electronically (via email) for posting on OTEXA's Web site. Confidential versions of those submissions which contain business confidential information must be delivered in hard copy to the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) at the U.S. Department of Commerce.

III. Data

OMB Control Number: 0625-0272.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 16.

Estimated Time per Response: 8 hours per Request, 2 hours per Response, and 1 hour per Rebuttal.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 89.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $5,340.

IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

Under the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act and the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA), the Secretary of Commerce has determined that Italy no longer has vessels that use large-scale driftnets to fish on the high seas. Therefore, shipments of certain fish and fish products from Italy are no longer required to be accompanied by a Fisheries Certificate of Origin (NOAA Form 370) for importation into the United States, and any NOAA Form 370 used for fish or fish products from Italy no longer requires certification that the fish was not harvested with large-scale driftnets on the high seas.

On March 28, 1996, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce identified Italy pursuant to the U.S. High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act, 16 U.S.C. 1826a-1826c, as a nation for which there was reason to believe its nationals or vessels were conducting large-scale high seas driftnet fishing in contravention to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/215. The identification invoked, among other things, the provision of the DPCIA, 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)(F) that requires that an exporting nation whose fishing vessels engage in high seas driftnet fishing provide documentary evidence that certain fish and fish products (specified in regulations at 50 CFR 216.24(f)(2)) it wishes to export to the United States were not harvested with large-scale driftnets anywhere on the high seas. Effective May 29, 1996, all shipments from Italy containing the specified fish and fish products became subject to this driftnet reporting requirement.

The reporting requirement has persisted to the present day as a deterrent to large-scale high seas driftnet fishing by Italy. The United States has not received any reports of Italian fishing vessels employing large-scale driftnets on the high seas since 2008. On April 2, 2015, the Government of Italy sent notification which certified that no Italian vessel is involved in the use of large-scale driftnets on the high seas. Italy will no longer be required to provide documentary evidence that certain fish and fish products (specified in U.S. regulations at 50 CFR 216.24(f)(2)(i) and (ii)) it wishes to export to the United States were not harvested with large-scale driftnets on the high seas. Furthermore, fish and fish products exported from Italy, and imported into the United States under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) numbers specified in U.S. regulations at 50 CFR 216.24(f)(2)(iii), will no longer need to be accompanied by a Fisheries Certificate of Origin (NOAA Form 370).

The HSDFEA furthers the purposes of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/215, which called for a worldwide ban on large-scale high seas driftnet fishing beginning December 31, 1992.

The DPCIA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)(F)) requires that an exporting nation whose fishing vessels engage in high seas driftnet fishing provide documentary evidence that certain fish or fish products it wishes to export to the United States were not harvested with a large-scale driftnet on the high seas. As required by 50 CFR 216.24(f)(2), the NOAA Form 370 must accompany all imported shipments of an item with an HTS number listed in that section harvested by or imported from a large-scale driftnet nation.

As of the effective date of this notice, a certification by an Italian Government representative attesting that the fish or fish products were not harvested by a large-scale driftnet on the high seas will no longer be required in Section 7 of the NOAA Form 370 for the HTS numbers specified in 50 CFR 216.24(f)(2)(i) and (ii). Furthermore, a NOAA Form 370 will no longer be required for any importation from Italy for the non-tuna fish and fish products classified with the HTS numbers specified at 50 CFR 216.24(f)(2)(iii).

The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Title: Fisheries Finance Program Requirements.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0012.

Form Number(s): NOAA 88-1.

Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operates a direct loan program to assist in financing certain actions relating to commercial fishing vessels, shoreside fishery facilities, aquaculture operations, and individual fishing quotas. Application information is required to determine eligibility pursuant to 50 CFR part 253 and to determine the type and amount of assistance requested by the applicant. An annual financial statement is required from the recipients to monitor the financial status of the loan.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households.

Frequency: Annually and on occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-5806.

The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Title: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and University of Hawaii Research Internship Program

OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Request: Regular (request for a new information collection).

Number of Respondents: 20.

Average Hours per Response: 1 hour each for applications, references and support letters.

Burden Hours: 80.

Needs and Uses: This request is for a new collection of information. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (PMNM) would like to collect student data and information for the purposes of selecting candidates for its research internship program in partnership with the University of Hawaii. The application package would contain: (1) A form requesting information on academic background and professional experiences, (2) reference forms in support of the internship application by two educational or professional references, and (3) a support letter from one academic professor or advisor.

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY:

On September 8, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order 1 on hand trucks and certain parts thereof (hand trucks) from the People's Republic of China (PRC).2 The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2012, through November 30, 2013. This administrative review covers three exporters of the subject merchandise: New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (New-Tec); Yangjiang Shunhe Industrial Co. (Shunhe); and Full Merit Enterprise Limited (Full Merit).

Based upon our analysis of the comments and information received following the Preliminary Results, we made changes to the margin calculations for these final results. The final dumping margin is listed below in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice. We continue to find that Shunhe is part of the PRC-wide entity (see “No Shipments Claim,” infra). In addition, we are rescinding this review with respect to Full Merit at this time (see “Rescission of Review, in Part,” infra).

On September 8, 2014, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of the 2012-2013 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the PRC. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. On October 8, 2014, Cosco Home and Office Products (Cosco), a U.S. importer, submitted a case brief. No other comments were submitted to the Department.

Scope of the Order

The merchandise subject to the order consists of hand trucks manufactured from any material, whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain parts thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof. They are typically imported under heading 8716.80.50.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), although they may also be imported under heading 8716.80.50.90 and 8716.90.50.60. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.3

3See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, “Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013” (Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with and adopted by this notice, for a complete description of the Scope of the Order.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised by parties in this administrative review are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is electronically available via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).4 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046, of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

4 On November 2, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS) to AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). The Web site location was changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the references to the regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).

No Shipments Claim

Shunhe submitted certifications of no shipments. Because Shunhe was, at the outset of this administrative review, and continues to be part of the PRC-wide entity in this administrative review, the Department did not make a determination of no shipments.5 Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, the Department did not receive any information that indicated anything to the contrary. The Department therefore finds for these final results that Shunhe continues to remain part of the PRC-wide entity.

In the Preliminary Results, the Department noted that it would rescind the review with respect to Full Merit in the final results if the PRC-wide entity did not come under review in this administrative review. Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, the Department did not receive any comments or information which indicated that Full Merit or the PRC-wide entity should be reviewed. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the administrative review with respect to this company.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on a review of the record and comments received from an interested party regarding our Preliminary Results, we made certain revisions to the margin calculations for New-Tec. Specifically, the Department adjusted financial ratio calculations for surrogate values and adjusted the surrogate values for energy.6

6See Issues and Decisions Memorandum; see also Memorandum to the File, “Analysis for the Final Results of Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: New-Tec” (January 6, 2015).

Separate Rates Determination

In our Preliminary Results, we determined that New-Tec met the criteria for separate rate status. We have not received any information since the issuance of the Preliminary Results that provides a basis for reconsidering this preliminary finding. Therefore, the Department continues to find that New-Tec meets the criteria for a separate rate.

Final Results of the Review

The Department determines that the following final dumping margin exists for the period December 1, 2012, through November 30, 2013:

ExporterWeighted-

average

margin

(percent)

New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd0.00Disclosure

The Department will disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed within five days after the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Assessment Rate

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department determines, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise and deposits of estimated duties, where applicable, in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. Because we have calculated a zero margin for New-Tec in the final results of this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

On October 24, 2011, the Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases.7 Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.8

7 For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

8Id.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by New-Tec, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review, except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required; (2) for any previously reviewed or investigated PRC and non-PRC exporter not listed above that received a separate rate in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 383.60 percent); and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied the non-PRC exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

Administrative Protective Order

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing this final results of administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”) announces that the Commission has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of approval of a collection of information associated with the CPSC's Safety Standard for Portable Bed Rails (OMB No. 3041-0149). In the Federal Register of March 19, 2015 (80 FR 14367), the CPSC published a notice to announce the agency's intention to seek extension of approval of the collection of information. The Commission received no comments. Therefore, by publication of this notice, the Commission announces that CPSC has submitted to the OMB a request for extension of approval of that collection of information, without change.

DATES:

Written comments on this request for extension of approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by July 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Submit comments about this request by email: OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov or fax: 202-395-6881. Comments by mail should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. In addition, written comments that are sent to OMB also should be submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. CPSC-2011-0019.

General Description of Collection: The Commission issued a safety standard for portable bed rails (16 CFR part 1224) on February 29, 2012 (77 FR 12182). The standard is intended to address hazards to children from use of portable bed rails. Among other requirements, the standard requires manufacturers, including importers, to meet the collection of information requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional literature for portable bed rails.

This notice announces a meeting of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Katie Runkles at (301) 903-6594 (fax) or katie.runkles@science.doe.gov (email). Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying within 45 days by contacting Katie Runkles at the address above.

This notice announces a combined meeting of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee and Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico (known locally as the Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board [NNMCAB]). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Purpose of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee (EM&R): The EM&R Committee provides a citizens' perspective to NNMCAB on current and future environmental remediation activities resulting from historical Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) operations and, in particular, issues pertaining to groundwater, surface water and work required under the New Mexico Environment Department Order on Consent. The EM&R Committee will keep abreast of DOE-EM and site programs and plans. The committee will work with the NNMCAB to provide assistance in determining priorities and the best use of limited funds and time. Formal recommendations will be proposed when needed and, after consideration and approval by the full NNMCAB, may be sent to DOE-EM for action.

Purpose of the Waste Management (WM) Committee: The WM Committee reviews policies, practices and procedures, existing and proposed, so as to provide recommendations, advice, suggestions and opinions to the NNMCAB regarding waste management operations at the Los Alamos site.

Tentative Agenda:

• Call to Order and Introductions• Approval of Agenda• Approval of Minutes from May 13, 2015• Old Business• New Business• Update from Executive Committee• Update from DOE• Presentation by DOE• Public Comment Period• Adjourn

Public Participation: The NNMCAB's Committees welcome the attendance of the public at their combined committee meeting and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Menice Santistevan at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Committees either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at: http://www.nnmcab.energy.gov/.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has determined that the 2015 edition of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) would improve energy efficiency in buildings subject to the code compared to the 2012 edition. DOE analysis indicates that buildings meeting the 2015 IECC (as compared with buildings meeting the 2012 IECC) would result in national source energy savings of approximately 0.87 percent, site energy savings of approximately 0.98 percent, and energy cost savings of approximately 0.73 percent of residential building energy consumption, as regulated by the IECC. Upon publication of this affirmative determination, each State is required by statute to certify that it has reviewed the provisions of its residential building code regarding energy efficiency, and made a determination as to whether to update its code to meet or exceed the 2015 IECC. Additionally, this notice provides guidance to States on these processes and associated certifications.

DATES:

Certification statements provided by States must be submitted by June 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Certification Statements must be addressed to the Building Technologies Office—Building Energy Codes Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., EE-5B, Washington, DC 20585.

Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA), as amended, establishes requirements for building energy conservation standards, administered by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program. (42 U.S.C. 6831 et seq.) Section 304(a), as amended, of ECPA provides that whenever the 1992 Model Energy Code (MEC), or any successor to that code, is revised, the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) must make a determination, not later than 12 months after such revision, whether the revised code would improve energy efficiency in residential buildings, and must publish notice of such determination in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) The Secretary may determine that the revision of the 1992 MEC, or any successor thereof, improves the level of energy efficiency in residential buildings. If so, then not later than two years after the date of the publication of such affirmative determination, each State is required to certify that it has reviewed its residential building code regarding energy efficiency, and made a determination as to whether it is appropriate to revise its code to meet or exceed the provisions of the successor code. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) State determinations are to be made: (1) After public notice and hearing; (2) in writing; (3) based upon findings included in such determination and upon evidence presented at the hearing; and (4) available to the public. (See 42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(2)) In addition, if a State determines that it is not appropriate to revise its residential building code, the State is required to submit to the Secretary, in writing, the reasons, which are to be made available to the public. (See 42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(4))

ECPA requires the Secretary to permit extensions of the deadlines for the State certification if a State can demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of section 304(a) of ECPA, and that it has made significant progress in doing so. (42 U.S.C. 6833(c)) DOE is also directed to provide technical assistance to States to support implementation of State residential and commercial building energy efficiency codes. (42 U.S.C. 6833(d))

B. Background

The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) is the national model code establishing energy efficiency requirements for residential buildings. The IECC is revised every 3 years through a code development and consensus process administered by the International Code Council (ICC) 1. Code change proposals may be submitted by any interested party, and are evaluated through a series of public hearings. As part of the ICC process, any interested party may submit proposals, as well as written comments or suggested changes to any proposal, and make arguments before a committee of experts assembled by the ICC. At the final public hearing, arguments are presented to and voted upon by the ICC Governmental Member Representatives, with the collection of accepted proposals forming the revised edition of the IECC. The ICC published the 2015 edition of the IECC (2015 IECC or 2015 edition) on June 3, 2014, which forms the basis of this determination notice.

1 More information on the ICC code development and consensus process is described at http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/Pages/procedures.aspx.

In arriving at its determination, DOE reviewed all changes between the 2012 and 2015 editions of the IECC with respect to residential buildings. Accordingly, DOE published a Notice of Preliminary Determination regarding the 2015 IECC in the Federal Register on September 26, 2014 (79 FR 57915).

C. Public Comments Regarding the Determination

DOE accepted public comments on the Notice of Preliminary Determination for the 2015 IECC until October 27, 2014. DOE received timely submissions from a total of five submitters.

ICC's first comment offers general support for DOE's preliminary determination. (ICC, No. 2 at p. 2) 2 In its second comment, ICC suggests DOE accompany its 2015 IECC determination with “previously released information regarding the increased efficiency of the 2012 IECC over the 2009 version, and the increased efficiency of the 2009 version over the 2006 version, in order to make it abundantly clear that the efficiency of the 2015 IECC is much higher than versions of the IECC in use in many states and jurisdictions around the nation.” (ICC, No. 2 at p. 2-3) DOE agrees with ICC's assessment that the provisions of the 2015 edition of the IECC are much more energy efficient than several earlier editions of the model code. In performing its determination, DOE evaluates the expected national impact of the new edition of the model code, in this case the 2015 IECC, against the most recent previous edition receiving an affirmative determination of energy savings, in this case the 2012 IECC (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)). However, DOE recognizes that the updated code represents a significant savings opportunity—in many cases up to 30 percent savings relative to codes currently adopted by U.S. states.3 In response, DOE has added references to earlier determinations, as well as the associated energy savings estimates, in Section V of this notice. In its third comment, ICC suggests DOE “emphasize that states are to compare the provisions of their current codes with the provisions and requirements of the 2015 IECC, and not assume that the percentage increase in efficiency for their respective state will be the same as the 1% increase measured by DOE over the provisions in the 2012 IECC.” (ICC, No. 2 at p. 3) DOE acknowledges that States and localities should indeed consider the impact of updated model codes relative to the specific requirements in effect within the state or locality. In performing its determination, DOE evaluates the updated model code relative to the previous model code, and estimates the aggregate impact on national energy consumption. As many adopting states and localities make modifications to the model code, these entities should evaluate the impacts of the updated code relative to their own provisions. ICC further offers suggested communication options for DOE to consider: “(1) DOE should transmit, with a cover letter offering assistance and cooperation, a copy of the final determination to the governor of each state, with a copy to the State Energy Office, and post a copy of the cover letter template on the DOE Building Energy Codes Web site. (2) DOE should provide, along with the cover letter and determination, a simple form response `state determination form' in a format that allows the state officials charged with complying with the law the ability to check off whether the state (a) has reviewed its code, (b) has provided notice and an opportunity for comment in the state, (c) has made findings, (d) has published such findings, and (e) if the state has determined to revise its code a description of the new code, and if it has decided not to revise its residential building energy code, a space to provide the reasons for such decision. (3) The cover letter, as well as the proposed form for response to DOE, should prominently note the date on which the response to DOE is due. (4) DOE should publish on its Building Energy Codes Web site the response received from each state, as well as a list of states from which a response has not been received, updated on a regular basis. (5) Publishing the information on each state, and its response or non-response would allow citizens to become involved and ask questions of their public officials, and otherwise determine whether their state is in compliance with the law.” (ICC, No. 2 at p. 3) DOE is currently evaluating the means by which it tracks the national implementation of building energy codes, and will consider the communication options proposed by ICC.

2 A notation in the form “ICC, No. 2 at p. 2” identifies a written comment that DOE received and has included in the docket of DOE's “Preliminary Determination Regarding Energy Efficiency Improvements in the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-DET-0030), which is maintained at www.regulations.gov. This particular notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by ICC; (2) filed as document number 2 of the docket, and (3) appearing on page 2 of that document.

NAHB's first comment suggests that “DOE's analysis of the pipe insulation was not properly calculated” and noted that the actual net change made by this proposal was to increase the length of 3/4-inch pipe requiring insulation by including runs shorter than 10 feet, while eliminating insulation requirements on smaller diameter piping. NAHB suggests “by properly applying the new hot water pipe insulation requirements, the resulting energy savings will change.” (NAHB, No. 3 at p. 1) DOE agrees with NAHB's comments relative to the net energy savings surrounding this particular proposal, and has revised its analysis accordingly. The revised estimated total energy cost savings compared to the 2012 IECC are now 0.73% compared to the preliminary estimate of 0.90% (see Section III of this notice). NAHB's second comment notes that the “International Code Council (ICC) originally had proposal RE112-13 listed as being approved to be included in the 2015 edition of the IECC. This proposal, however, was actually withdrawn by the proponent before it was approved on the consent agenda. As a result, the changes were not included in the 2015 IECC and thus, any reference to RE112-13 should be removed from the analysis.” (NAHB, No. 3 at p. 2) DOE agrees with NAHB's comment and acknowledges that the subject proposal is not included in the 2015 IECC. DOE notes that the original documentation published by the ICC following the public hearing process inadvertently included this proposal, and it has since been confirmed that the proposal was withdrawn from consideration during the hearing process. DOE has revised this notice and supporting documentation accordingly. (Note that RECA offered a similar comment on RE112-13; see RECA, No. 4 at p. 3.)

RECA's first comment expresses general support for DOE's Preliminary Determination on the 2015 edition of IECC, DOE's evaluation methodology in both its quantitative and qualitative aspects, and DOE's conclusion that the 2015 IECC's weakening amendments are outweighed by its strengthening amendments. (RECA No. 4 at p. 1) In its second comment, RECA “urges the Department to move ahead to finalize its Determination endorsing the 2015 IECC for state adoption”; “to continue to provide materials to states and localities that will facilitate the adoption of, and compliance with, this latest edition of the IECC”; “to expeditiously make training and compliance software available to states that adopt the 2015 IECC”; and “to provide additional funding to those states that are early adopters of the 2015 IECC.” (RECA No. 4 at p. 1, and 3) DOE acknowledges the need for materials that can assist in facilitating the adoption of the latest editions of the model code. While these activities are not directly within the scope of the DOE determination analysis, DOE is directed to provide technical assistance to states implementing building energy codes (42 U.S.C. 6833(d)), and does so through a variety of activities, such as state-specific energy and cost analysis, code compliance software, and a collection of technical resources. DOE intends to continue to provide such resources to assist states in implementing updated model codes, including adoption of such codes by states and localities, and increasing compliance with building energy codes to ensure intended consumer energy and cost savings. In its third comment, RECA agrees with DOE that, “proposal RE68-13 slightly weakens sunroom fenestration requirements”, “the impact should be very small”, and it, “does not affect SHGC requirements”, but notes that “the impact is on climate zones 2-3, not climate zone 1.” (RECA No. 4 at p. 2) DOE agrees with RECA's comment and assessment of the subject proposal, and has revised the determination notice and supporting analysis accordingly. In its fourth comment, RECA disagrees with DOE that duct tightness levels tend to always be a “zero sum trade-off” as claimed in the Preliminary Determination, and suggests that “the Department explicitly and correctly recognize the value of mandatory measures, and that removal of this mandatory backstop is a reduction in stringency in some cases, albeit likely modest, depending on the measure that replaces duct efficiency.” (RECA No. 4 at p. 2-3) DOE agrees in principle with RECA's comment that energy neutrality depends on a variety of factors, including impacts over the useful life of alternative energy measures. In the case of building energy efficiency tradeoffs, the impact on longer-term energy savings can vary significantly between the measures being traded and the chosen alternative designs. In addition, DOE understands the purpose of mandatory requirements within the code, and while the subject proposal cannot directly be captured within the DOE quantitative analysis, DOE indeed acknowledges the potential effect on building energy efficiency in application. In its fifth comment, RECA notes that proposal RE112-13 “was withdrawn prior to final consideration, and is thus not part of the 2015 IECC.” (RECA No. 4 at p. 3) DOE agrees with this comment, as detailed above in response to NAHB's similar comment. In its sixth comment, RECA suggests that DOE should “continue to assess the potential impact of changes to the IECC for compliance paths outside the prescriptive path” averring that expanding the Department's ability to further assess such changes is in the public interest. (RECA No. 4 at p. 3) With specific reference to DOE's evaluation of the new ERI compliance path, RECA agrees with DOE's use of the prescriptive compliance path as the generally predominant path, but recommends “this emphasis on the prescriptive path for the numerical analysis should not be read as limiting the overall assessment of all changes in the code, nor should it suggest that an edition of the code will receive a positive or negative determination solely on the basis of this quantitative analysis.” RECA notes that in previous determinations, DOE has not historically limited itself to analyzing only changes to the prescriptive path, and encourages DOE not to limit itself to only considering changes to the prescriptive path in the future. RECA “urges the Department to clarify in its Determination that it will continue to assess any changes made to the performance path, and any new compliance options (like ERI) that are added to the IECC going forward in future Determinations.” DOE agrees with RECA's comment in principle, and acknowledges that changes in the 2015 IECC, as well as potential future changes to the IECC, are likely to require increasingly nuanced analyses of the changes' impacts. As stated in the preliminary notice, DOE plans to collect data specifically on the ERI path, and will consider means to broaden the scope of that commitment, as necessary, in the future. In addition, while the DOE Determination has typically focused on the mandatory and prescriptive requirements of the IECC, the Department reserves the right to evaluate other means of compliance when adequate information is available. In its seventh comment, RECA agrees with DOE that “it is difficult to assess the impact of the new Energy Rating Index in the context of a Determination,” but argues that “DOE could reasonably conclude, based on the results of a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory study, that the new compliance path is reasonably likely to save energy as compared to compliance with the 2012 IECC prescriptive requirements on average, even if some individual homes could be weaker than those built to the 2012 IECC.” 4 (RECA No. 4 at p. 5) DOE appreciates the comment and agrees, based on the referenced PNNL analysis, that most homes built using the ERI path, as specified in the 2015 IECC, are likely to be at least as efficient as the homes built to meet the prescriptive requirements of the IECC or the traditional performance path. In its eighth comment, RECA urges DOE to “promote the proper adoption and implementation of the ERI as contained in the 2015 IECC, without any weakening amendments, including monitoring its deployment in states and cities going forward.” RECA also recommends “DOE develop and/or fund comprehensive support materials and training to help to ensure that the ERI is properly implemented,” and that “DOE should also consider how it can help to ensure that the ERI process produces consistent, repeatable, and credible results for code compliance.” (RECA No. 4 at p. 5-7) DOE acknowledges the importance of the new ERI path in the 2015 IECC and its potential impact on energy as the code is implemented. While code implementation activities are outside the direct scope of the DOE determination, DOE does provide technical assistance to states implementing building energy codes (42 U.S.C. 6833(d)). DOE recognizes the need for continued analysis and support for states adopting the 2015 IECC, and will consider the requested activities, as able and appropriate, through the Building Energy Codes Program. In its ninth comment, RECA supports the “Department's stated plan to collect data relevant to the ERI, as well as all compliance options allowed in the IECC.” RECA further encourages the Department to “reach out to industry and nonprofit partners to aggregate the data already available, and to explore new methods for collecting and analyzing data on the various compliance options and tools used across the country.” (RECA No. 4 at p. 7) DOE acknowledges and appreciates RECA's support, and plans to work with the industry and stakeholders in evaluating the new ERI path and associated energy impact. As previously stated, DOE intends to collect relevant data and track the implementation of the ERI path relative to the traditional compliance options provided by the IECC. DOE will continue to communicate with interested and affected parties as the 2015 IECC is implemented and as further data and resulting analysis becomes available.

NRDC's first two comments offer general support for DOE's determination that the 2015 IECC saves energy compared to the 2012 IECC, for DOE's quantitative finding of energy savings, and for DOE's qualitative assessment of the specific code changes that will result in energy savings. (NRDC, No. 5 at p. 1-2) In its third comment NRDC suggests that “actual energy savings from the 2015 IECC are likely to be much larger than indicated by DOE's analysis”, specifically suggesting that the “new Energy Rating Index (ERI) pathway created by RE188-13 is likely to result in significant energy savings.” (NRDC, No.5 at p.2) NRDC acknowledges that it is not knowable exactly how many homes will comply using the ERI pathway, but suggests it is certainly not zero. NRDC suggests that “currently about half of new homes constructed in the U.S. are rated using the RESNET HERS rating”, and that “it is likely a large percentage of these homes will choose to comply with the code via the ERI pathway, since this will likely be the simplest method of compliance.” (NRDC, No. 5 at p. 2) NRDC further notes that a “Pacific Northwest National Laboratory analysis of the HERS index's relationship to the 2012 IECC performance path found that for all climate zones the ERI values adopted in the 2015 IECC ranged from at least as efficient to substantially more efficient than the 2012 IECC, indicating that homes complying with the ERI path will on average achieve large energy savings compared to the 2012 IECC.” (NRDC, No. 5 at p. 2) DOE agrees that the new alternative ERI compliance path, including the associated thresholds as published in the 2015 IECC, is reasonably likely to result in energy savings compared to the 2012 IECC and the majority of current state codes. However, DOE remains unaware of any current data source that would allow for adequate evaluation of the newly created path. DOE continues to base its evaluation of the new path on the recent analysis conducted by PNNL, as referenced in the preliminary determination notice. In its fourth comment, NRDC appreciates DOE's indication in the preliminary determination that “it will attempt to collect data on the utilization of the various compliance pathways and evaluate whether it can quantify savings from compliance pathways other than the prescriptive path in future determinations”, and urges DOE to “evaluate energy savings from the ERI pathway in future determinations, as currently the analysis leaves out this potential source of significant energy savings.” (NRDC, No. 5 at p.2) DOE acknowledges the importance of evaluating the energy impact of the ERI alternative, but remains unaware of any current data source that would allow for adequate evaluation of the newly created path. DOE, therefore, maintains its intentions to track the adoption of the ERI path relative to traditional application of the IECC, and may further evaluate this path in future analyses.

One comment was received from an individual submitter, Craig Conner, who indicated that “DOE made errors in estimating the residential energy savings for the change that included a new tropical option for residential construction (CE66-13 Part II, or CE66-II).” (Conner No. 6 at p. 1) Mr. Conner suggests that “DOE modeling was not done in accordance with the IECC standard reference design, and therefore is not as required for a determination.” He further suggests that “several major energy saving requirements provided by this new option were ignored or underestimated”, and argues that “the definition of the Tropical Zone, which is a subset of existing IECC Climate Zone 1, does not by itself increase or decrease energy”, but that “it is the associated requirements that would potentially affect energy use.” (Conner No. 6 at p. 1) Mr. Conner cites three aspects of proposal CE66-13 Part II that should have been considered new energy-saving requirements rather than conditions under which other requirements may be lessened, as DOE interpreted them: The restriction that the home not be heated and that 50% of the home be uncooled, the restriction that 80% of domestic water heating be by solar or other renewable sources, and the restriction that natural ventilation be facilitated by operable windows. (Conner No. 6 at p. 1) In response, DOE appreciates Mr. Conner's comments, but does not agree with his assessment regarding the particular proposal. The IECC Standard Reference Design (SRD) is intended for demonstrating compliance of individual buildings, which differs from the aggregate national analysis applied in DOE determinations. Although the DOE building modeling prototypes and simulation methodology occasionally draw on SRD assumptions, where appropriate, they are also informed by additional sources that may better represent typical construction practices, and to estimate an expected impact of code changes. In this case, DOE considered typical construction affected by the newly defined Tropical Zone, and acknowledges the modified criteria associated with partially-conditioned homes (e.g., with solar water heating systems and operable windows). However, it is not clear that these changes will encourage additional use of energy-saving features, and DOE has maintained its original assessment.

II. Methodology

In arriving at a determination, DOE reviewed all changes between the 2015 and 2012 editions of the IECC. The IECC covers a broad spectrum of the energy-related components and systems in buildings, ranging from simpler residential buildings to more complex multifamily facilities. For the purposes of its determination, DOE focused only on low-rise residential buildings, defined in a manner consistent with the ICC and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Low-rise residential buildings include one- and two-family detached and attached buildings, and low-rise multifamily buildings (not greater than three stories), such as condominiums and garden apartments. The 2015 IECC was developed through the same approach as the previous 2012 edition with approval through the ICC consensus process. The 2015 edition contains no significant changes to the overall scope or the structure of the prescriptive and mandatory provisions of the code, which form the basis of the DOE determination analyses. As a result, DOE determined that the methodology used for the analysis of the 2012 IECC should again be utilized for the analysis of the 2015 IECC.

Overview of Methodology

The analysis methodology used by DOE contains both qualitative and quantitative components. A qualitative comparison is undertaken to identify textual changes between requirements in the 2015 and 2012 editions of the IECC, followed by a quantitative assessment of energy savings conducted through whole-building simulations of buildings constructed to meet the minimum requirements of each code over a range of U.S. climates. The analysis methodology, which was previously developed through a public comment process, is available on the DOE Building Energy Codes Program Web site.5

5See http://www.energycodes.gov/development/residential/methodology.

Consistent with its previous determinations, DOE compared overall editions of the IECC, and did not issue determinations for individual code changes. DOE interprets the language in section 304(a) of ECPA to mean that when a comprehensive revision of the 1992 MEC, or its successor (which in this case is the 2015 IECC), is published, then that revised or successor code triggers the Secretary's obligation to issue a determination as to whether the revised code improves energy efficiency in residential buildings. (See 42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) This determination is made by comparing the revised or successor code to the last predecessor code.

Consideration for Technological and Economic Factors

Section 304(a) of ECPA states that the Secretary is required to make a determination as to whether any successor standard to the 1992 MEC will improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) Section 304 of ECPA does not include any reference to economic justification, although such criteria are considered directly by the ICC code development and consensus process, as applicable. Each proposal submitted to the ICC code development process also requires a declaration of whether the proposed code change will increase the cost of construction.

Separate from the Secretary's determination under section 304(a), section 307 of ECPA requires DOE to periodically review the technical and economic basis of the voluntary building energy codes, and participate in the industry process for review and modification, including seeking adoption of all technologically feasible and economically justified energy efficiency measures. (42 U.S.C. 6836(b)) In fulfillment of this directive, DOE evaluates its code change proposals submitted to the ICC, analyzing energy savings and cost-effectiveness, as applicable, and otherwise participates in the ICC process. In addition, DOE performs independent technical and economic analysis of the IECC as part of its direction to provide assistance to States implementing building energy codes. This approach allows DOE to meet its statutory obligation to participate in the industry process for review and modification of the IECC, and to seek adoption of all technologically feasible and economically justified energy efficiency measures. (42 U.S.C. 6836(b)).

In preparation for technical assistance activities, DOE previously developed a standardized methodology for assessing the cost-effectiveness of code changes through a public process. (78 FR 47677) This methodology is published on the DOE Building Energy Codes Program Web site, and has been applied by DOE in the development of code change proposals for the IECC, as well as assessing the cost-effectiveness of published editions of the IECC. DOE expects to update this methodology periodically to ensure its assumptions and economic criteria remain valid and adequate for the analysis of potential code change proposals, and for States considering adoption of model building energy codes. DOE will continue to use the currently established methodology and parameters for developing materials for the technical assistance of the 2015 IECC.

III. Summary of Findings

In performing its determination, DOE performed both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the prescriptive and mandatory requirements contained in the 2015 IECC. The chosen methodology for these analyses is consistent with actions of recent determinations, and provides a reasonable assessment of how the code will affect energy savings in residential buildings. A summary of the analyses supporting DOE's determination is outlined in the following sections.

Qualitative Analysis

DOE performed a comparative analysis of the textual requirements of the 2015 IECC, examining the specific changes (approved code changes) made between the 2012 and the 2015 editions. The ICC Code Hearing process considers individual code changes for approval, and then bundles all the approved code changes together to form the next published edition. In creating the 2015 IECC, ICC processed 76 approved code change proposals. DOE evaluated each of these code change proposals in preparing its determination. In conducting the revised analysis, DOE also took into consideration NAHB's comment about DOE's analysis of pipe insulation requirements (NAHB, No. 3 at p. 1).

Overall, DOE found that the vast majority of changes in the 2015 IECC appear to be neutral (i.e., have no direct impact on energy savings) within the context of the determination analysis. DOE also found that beneficial changes (i.e., increased energy savings) outweigh any changes with a detrimental effect on energy efficiency in residential buildings. Of the 76 total changes:

• 6 were considered beneficial;

• 62 were considered neutral;

• 5 were considered negligible;

• 2 were considered detrimental; and

• 1 was considered to have an unquantifiable impact.

Table III.1 presents the findings resulting from the qualitative analysis, along with a description of the change, as well as an assessment of the anticipated impact on energy savings in residential buildings. Additional details pertaining to the qualitative analysis are presented in a technical support document.6

ReasonRE1-13R101.4.3 (IRC N1101.3)Deletes the exception for vestibules in the provisions pertaining to additions, alterations, renovations, and repairs.NeutralThe residential code has no requirements for vestibules.RE3-13R103.2 (IRC N1101.8)Deletes text relating to commercial building components in “Information on Construction Documents.”NeutralEditorial change.RE5-13R202 (IRC N1101.9)Deletes the definition of “entrance door.”NeutralThe definition applied to nonresidential buildings only.RE6-13R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 (NEW))Adds definition of “Insulating Siding” and notes that the insulation level of this siding must be R-2 or greater.NeutralAddition of definition.RE9-13R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 (NEW)), R304 (NEW) (IRC N1101.16 (NEW))Adds an appendix with non-mandatory provisions for homes to be “solar-ready.” Designed to be readily referenced by adopting authorities as needed.NeutralNo direct impact, but has the potential to increase efficiency in the future.RE12-13R401.2 (IRC N1101.15)Minor clarification that the code's mandatory requirements should be met in all compliance paths.NeutralClarification of code requirements.RE14-13R401.3 (IRC N1101.16)Adds more options for the allowable locations for posting the certificate of occupancy.NeutralNot energy related but does eliminate a small enforcement hindrance.RE16-13R401.3 (IRC N1101.16)Similar to RE14-13. Allows more options for the allowable locations for posting the certificate of occupancy.NeutralNot energy related but does eliminate a small enforcement hindrance.RE18-13R402.1 (IRC N1102.1), R402.1.1 (NEW) (IRC N1102.1.1 (NEW))Cross-references vapor barrier requirements by referencing IRC R702.7.NeutralAdds consistency and clarifies code requirements.RE30-13Table R402.1.1, (IRC Table N1102.1.1)Modifies footnote h to these tables to allow combined sheathing/siding.NeutralAdds an option for combined insulated sheathing/siding that meets code requirements.RE43-13R402.1.2 (IRC N1102.1.2)Adds use of term “continuous insulation” instead of “insulating sheathing.”NeutralMinor clarification of terminology.RE45-13Table R402.1.3 (IRC N1102.1.3)Slightly increases frame wall U-factor in climate zones 1 and 2. The R-value table remains unchanged.NegligibleIntended to correct a perceived misalignment between the code's R-value-based requirements and the alternative U-factor-based requirements. The changes are very small and unlikely to change wall insulation levels in most homes.RE50-13Table R402.1.3 (IRC Table N1102.1.3)Slightly increases frame wall U-factor in climate zones 1-5 but reduces it in climate zones 6-8. The R-value table remains unchanged.NegligibleIntended to correct a perceived misalignment between the code's R-value-based requirements and the alternative U-factor-based requirements. The changes are very small and unlikely to change wall insulation levels in most homes.RE53-13R402.2.1 (IRC N1102.2.1)Clarifies decreased ceiling insulation allowance for ceilings with attic spaces only.NeutralClarification of the code requirement.RE58-13R402.2.4 (IRC N1102.2.4)Clarifies that vertical doors are not “access doors” in R402.2.4 and shall be permitted to meet the fenestration requirements of Table 402.1.1.NeutralClarification of the code requirement.RE60-13R402.2.7 (IRC N1102.2.7), Table R402.4.1.1 (IRC Table N1102.4.1.1)Allows the floor cavity insulation to not be in contact with the underside of the subfloor decking if it is in contact with the topside of sheathing or continuous insulation installed on the bottom side of floor framing.NeutralAllows a combination of cavity and continuous insulation to meet the floor R-value requirement.RE63-13Table R402.1.1 (IRC Table N1102.1.1), R402.2.13 (NNEW) (IRC N1102.2.13 (NEW))Clarifies footnote h text by rewording it and moving it to new section R402.2.13.NeutralClarification of code requirements.RE68-13R402.3.5 (IRC N1102.3.5)Slightly increases sunroom U-factor.DetrimentalApplies to only climate zones 2 and 3; impacts only thermally isolated sunrooms.RE83-13Table R402.4.1.1 (IRC Table N1102.4.1.1)Clarifies requirements for wall corner and headers to have insulation that has at least R-3 per inch, and clarifies that it is the cavities in such components that require the insulation.NeutralMinor addition and clarification of code requirements.RE84-13Table R402.4.1.1 (IRC Table N1102.4.1.1)Allows a combination of cavity and continuous insulation to meet the floor R-value requirement.NeutralSubset of RE60-13; makes minor clarifying revisions to wording.RE85-13Table R402.4.1.1 (IRC Table N1102.4.1.1)Reorganizes Table 402.4.1.1 by adding an additional column and separating “air barrier criteria” from “insulation installation criteria,” for clarity.NeutralClarification of code requirements.RE86-13Table R402.4.1.1 (IRC Table N1102.4.1.1), R402.4.2 (IRC N1102.4.2)Clarifies language relating to fireplace sealing/door requirements.NeutralClarification of code requirements.RE91-13R402.4.1.2 (IRC N1102.4.1.2), Chapter 5Adds references to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards E779 and E1827 for blower door testing.NeutralAdds more detailed references for procedures.RE103-13R403.1.1 (IRC N1103.1.1)Adds requirements for the thermostat to be pre-programmed by the manufacturer.NeutralClarifies that the requirement is the manufacturer's responsibility.RE105-13R403.1.1 (IRC N1103.1.1)Makes the programmable thermostat requirement apply to any heating/cooling system.NeutralNo direct impact on energy.RE107-13R403.2.1 (IRC N1103.2.1)Increases insulation requirements for return ducts in attics from R-6 to R-8.BeneficialModestly reduces conduction losses from return ducts in attics.RE109-13R403.2 (IRC N1103.2), R403.2.2 (IRC N1103.2.2), R403.2.3 (NEW) (IRC N1103.2.3 (NEW)), R403.2.4 (NEW) (IRC N1103.2.4 (NEW))Makes the maximum allowable duct leakage rates prescriptive, allowing performance path trade-offs.NeutralZero-sum tradeoff within IECC performance path rules; applies only to compliance via performance path.RE111-13R403.2.2 (IRC N1103.2.2)Aligns the IECC with the International Mechanical Code (IMC) by removing exception from duct sealing for low-pressure continuously welded ducts.NeutralRequires sealing of additional locking joints for consistency between the IECC and IMC. Impact is negligible because the mandatory duct pressure test governs duct leakage regardless of specific sealing strategies.RE117-13R403.2.2 (IRC N1103.2.2)Deletes exception relating to partially inaccessible duct connections.NeutralEditorial change to eliminate irrelevant text.RE118-13R403.2.2 (IRC N1103.2.2)Reverses the order of how the two duct testing options are presented.NeutralRearrangement of text.RE125-13, Part IR403.4.1 (IRC N1103.4.1), R403.4.1.1 (NEW) (IRC N1103.4.1.1 (NEW)), R403.4.1.2 (NEW) (IRC N1103.4.1.2 (NEW)), Chapter 5, IPC [E] 607.2.1, [E] 607.2.1.1 (NEW), [E] 607.2.1.1.1 (NEW), [E] 607.2.1.1.2 (NEW), IPC Chapter 14, IRC P2905 (NEW), IRC P2905.1 (NEW)Adds requirements for demand-activated control on hot water circulation systems and heat trace systems. Makes IECC, IRC, and IPC consistent and clarifies requirements for these systems.BeneficialDemand activated control reduces the runtime of circulation pumps.RE132-13R403.4.2 (IRC N1103.4.2), Table R403.4.2 (IRC Table N1103.4.2)Deletes requirement for domestic hot water (DHW) pipe insulation to kitchen and the generic requirement on long/large-diameter pipes. However, adds DHW pipe insulation for 3/4-inch pipes.BeneficialEnergy lost due to the elimination of hot water pipe insulation on the kitchen pipe is typically more than made up by added insulation requirements for pipes 3/4 inches in diameter, the most common size for trunk lines.RE136-13, Part IR403.4.2 (NEW) (IRC N1103.4.2 (NEW)), IPC 202, IPC [E]607.2.1.1 (NEW), IRC P2905 (NEW), IRC P2905.1 (NEW)Adds demand control requirements for recirculating systems that use a cold water supply pipe to return water to the tank.BeneficialDemand activated control reduces the runtime of circulation pumps.RE142-13R403.6 (IRC N1103.6)Requires heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning equipment to meet Federal efficiency standards.NeutralDOE's Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Program regulates the minimum efficiency of units produced by equipment manufacturers.RE163-13R405.4.2 (IRC N1105.4.2), R405.4.2.1 (NEW) (IRC N1105.4.2.1 (NEW)), R405.2.2 (NEW) (IRC N1105.4.2.2 (NEW))Specifies details of a compliance report for the performance approach.NeutralNo direct impact on energy.RE167-13Table R405.5.2(1) (IRC Table B1105.5.2(1))Fixes missing standard reference design specifications for thermal distribution systems.NeutralAdds details for modeling the standard reference design in the performance path.RE173-13Table R405.5.2(1) (IRC Table N1105.5.2(1))Adjusts Table R405.5.2(1) (the performance path) terminology for doors and fenestration.NeutralSimple clarification of the intent of the code.RE184-13R101.4.3, R202, R406 (NEW), (IRC N1101. 3, N1101.9, N1106 (NEW))Revamps alterations language and moves it from chapter 1 to section R406.NeutralTrade-offs between weakened and strengthened requirements possible but there is no feasible method for quantifying the energy impact of these trade-offs.RE188-13R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 (NEW)), R401.2 (IRC N1101.15), R406 (NEW) (IRC N1106 NEW)Optional new approach in section 406 requiring an ERI with a tradeoff limitation on the thermal envelope requirements.Not quantifiable at this timeNew alternative compliance path—no data is currently available to adequately estimate the number of homes that may be constructed using this compliance path.RE193-13R202 (IRC N1101.9), 403.10 (New) (IRC N1103.10 (New))Adds requirements for testing of combustion venting systems.NeutralImpacts air quality; no direct impact on home energy usage.RE195-13R402.1.2Subtracts out R-0.6 for insulating siding from R-value table to prevent double counting of siding.NeutralAdds consistency in R-value calculations.RB96-13, Part ITable R402.4.1.1Specifies that air sealing shall be provided in fire separation assemblies.NeutralMinor clarification of code requirements.RB100-13R303.4Corrects the air infiltration threshold in R303.4 to be 5 air changes per hour or less to align it with the infiltration limits set by the code.NeutralConsistency change.SP19-13, Part III303.1; IECC C404.7; IECC R403.9Makes numerous wording changes to pool and spa requirements. Doesn't appear to make substantive changes.NeutralNo direct impact on home energy usage.ADM22-13, Part IIIIECC: R108.2Revises “owner's agent” to “owner's authorized agent” in R108.2.NeutralSimple language change.ADM30-13, Part IIIIECC: R103.4Adds “work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents” to R103.4.NeutralSimple language change.ADM40-13, Part IIIIECC: R103.1Adds “technical reports” as acceptable data for submittal with a permit application.NeutralSimple language change.ADM51-13, Part IIIIECC: R202 (IRC N1101.9)Adds “retrofit” and other terms to definition of “alteration.”NeutralSimple language change.ADM57-13, Part IIIIECC: R202 (IRC N1101.9) (New)Adds definition of “approved agency.”NeutralSimple language change.ADM60-13, Part IIIIECC: R202 (IRC N1101.9)Revises definition of “repairs.”NeutralSimple language change.CE4-13, Part IIR101.4, R202 (IRC N1101.9); R402.3.6 (IRC N1102.3.6), Chapter 5 (RE) (NEW) (IRC N1106 (NEW))Editorial relocation of code text pertaining to “existing buildings” to a separate chapter.NeutralEditorial change.CE8-13, Part IIR101.4.2, R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 (NEW))Revises language requiring the code to apply to historic buildings if no “compromise to the historic nature and function of the building” occurs.BeneficialAdditional buildings must meet the code requirements.CE11-13, Part IIR101.4.3, (IRC N1101.3)Adds existing single-pane fenestration with surface films to the list of exceptions in R101.4.3.NeutralExceptions are allowed only if energy use is not increased.CE15-13, Part IIR101.4.3 (IRC N1101.3), R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 (NEW))Revises exemption for roofing replacement.NeutralEditorial change.CE23-13, Part IIR101.5.2 (IRC N1101.6), R402.1 (IRC N1102.1)Relocates exception for “low energy” buildings from R101.5.2 to R402.1.NeutralEditorial change.CE33-13, Part IIR102, R102.1.1 (NEW)Changes title of section R102 to “Applicability—Duties and powers of the Code Official” and revises language on “alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment.”NeutralEditorial change.CE37-13, Part IIR103.2.1 (NEW)Requires the building's thermal envelope to be represented on construction documents.NeutralSimple documentation requirement.CE38-13, Part IIR103.3, R104.1, R104.2 (NEW), R104.3, R104.3.1 (NEW), R014.3.2 (NEW), R104.3.3 (NEW), R104.3.4 (NEW), R104.3.5 (NEW), R104.3.6 (NEW), R104.5Revises a number of administrative requirements to enhance the ability to ensure compliance with the code and improve the usability of the code.NeutralNo direct impact on energy.CE43-13, Part IIR106.2Deletes R106.2 “Conflicting requirements” because it is redundant with “Conflicts” in R106.1.1.NeutralEditorial change.CE44-13, Part IIR108.4Revises language pertaining to “fines” in section R108.4.NeutralEditorial change.CE49-13, Part IIIR202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 (NEW))Adds definition of a “circulating hot water system.”NeutralEditorial change.CE50-13, Part IIR202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 (NEW))Add definition of “climate zone.”NeutralEditorial change.CE51-13, part IIR202 (IRC N1101.9)Revises the definition of “conditioned space.”NeutralRevision of definition.CE52-13, Part IIR202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 (NEW))Adds definition of “continuous insulation.”NeutralDefinition addition.CE59-13, Part IIR202 (IRC N1101.9)Revises the definition of “vertical glazing.”NeutralRevision of definition.CE61-13, Part IITable R301.1Adds “Broomfield County” to Table C301.1 and R301.1.NeutralEditorial change.CE62-13, Part IIFigure R301.1 (IRC Figure N1101.10), Table R301.1 (IRC Table N1101.10)Eliminates the “warm humid” designation for counties in the “dry” moisture regime in Southwest Texas.NeutralNo efficiency requirements depend on the warm-humid designation in Climate Zone 2/Dry.CE63-13, Part IIR303.1.1 (IRC N1101.12.1)Requires labeling R-value on packaging of insulated siding and listing of same on the certification.NeutralLabeling requirement.CE65-13, Part IIR303.1.3 (IRC N1101.12.3), Chapter 5Adds the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association (DASMA) standard 105 as an alternative to National Fenestration and Rating Council (NFRC) 100 for determining U-factors of garage doors, where required.NeutralAdds an option of using ANSI/DASMA 105 instead of NFRC 100.CE66-13, Part IIR301.4 (NEW) (IRC N1101.10.3 (NEW)), R406 (NEW) (IRC N1106 (NEW))Defines a new “Tropical” climate zone and adds an optional compliance path for semi-conditioned residential buildings with a list of pre-defined criteria to be deemed as code compliant in this climate zone.DetrimentalException to code requirements applicable to a small number of homes in tropical areas.CE67-13, Part IIR303.1.4.1 (N1101.12.4) (NEW), Chapter 5Adds ASTM C1363 as the required test standard for determining the thermal resistance (R-value) of insulating siding.NeutralAddition of testing requirements.CE161-13, Part IIR402.3.2 (IRC N1102.3.2)Allows dynamic glazing to satisfy the SHGC requirements provided the ratio of upper to lower SHGC is 2.4 or greater and is automatically controlled to modulate the amount of solar gain into the space.NegligibleSimilar energy impact to non-dynamic glazing.CE177-13, Part IIR402.1.2 (NEW), (IRC N1102.4.1.2 (NEW))Requires open combustion appliances to be outside conditioned space or in a room isolated from conditioned space and ducted to the outside.NeutralRelates to indoor air quality and does not impact energy directly.CE179-13, Part IITable R402.4.1.1 (IRC Table N1102.4.1.1)Exempts fire sprinklers from air sealing requirements.NegligibleThe home/unit would still have to pass the blower door test.CE283-13, Part IIR403.4.3 (NEW) (N1103.5 (NEW)), Chapter 5, IRC P2903.11 (NEW)Requires drain water heat recovery systems to comply with Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard 55 and adds references to CSA Standard 55 to chapter 5.NegligibleEnables credit for efficiency improvements due to the use of drain water heat recovery devices.CE362-13, Part IIR403.2 (New) (IRC N1103.2 (New))Adds requirement for outdoor setback control for hot water boilers that controls the boiler water temperature based on the outdoor temperature.BeneficialLowering boiler water temperature during periods of moderate outdoor temperature reduces energy consumption of the boiler.a Code sections refer to the 2012 IECC.KEY: The following terms are used to characterize the effect of individual code change on energy efficiency (as contained in the above table): Beneficial indicates that a code change is anticipated to improve energy efficiency; Detrimental indicates a code change may increase energy use in certain applications; Neutral indicates that a code change is not anticipated to impact energy efficiency; Negligible indicates a code change may have energy impacts but too small to quantify; and Not Quantifiable indicates that a code change may have energy impacts but can't be quantified at this time.

In addition to the changes approved for inclusion in the prescriptive and mandatory paths, ICC also approved a proposal based on an Energy Rating Index (ERI) in the 2015 IECC. While this change does not directly alter stringency of the code, it does provide an additional compliance path as an alternative to the traditional IECC prescriptive and performance paths. DOE determination analyses have historically focused on the prescriptive compliance path. This has been done because: (1) The prescriptive path is generally considered the predominant compliance path in practice, and; (2) the performance path effectively allows a limitless number of ways to comply with the code, and no accepted methodology exists for how to analyze it. Equally important, there is no aggregated source of data allowing for documentation of how buildings meet the performance path criteria. In the absence of such data, an analysis of the performance path would have no empirical basis.

The inclusion of a new type of compliance path in the 2015 IECC, which is based on an Energy Rating Index (ERI), prompted DOE to review its historical approach, and make a decision as to whether a change in methodology would be appropriate for the current determination analysis. Three primary points were considered:

(1) The impact of the ERI path on national residential energy consumption is dependent on the number of homes that use this new path, and the unique building characteristics of those homes. As no jurisdiction has yet implemented the 2015 IECC, there is no way to know how many homes will use this path.

(2) An analysis conducted by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) suggests that most homes built using the ERI path, as specified in the 2015 IECC, are likely to be at least as efficient as the homes built to meet the prescriptive requirements of the IECC or the traditional performance path.7

(3) Including the new ERI path but not the traditional performance path would be arbitrary relative to historical determination analysis. An accepted methodology, along with a supporting data source, by which to analyze the performance path would also be necessary, and is not currently available.

Based on these three points, DOE concluded that it is appropriate to follow its historical approach for the current determination. However, DOE acknowledges that the landscape of code compliance may be changing, and therefore plans to track the implementation and application of the new ERI path, as well as collect relevant data that may enable DOE to further evaluate the ERI path in future analyses. It will also investigate the possibility of collecting data that could provide the basis for a broader analysis of performance-based compliance paths. Finally, DOE will explore whether the total number of homes built under each path can be determined and tracked over time. DOE anticipates that multiple paths may be considered in future determinations, but will only be included if the potential energy savings are relative to the traditional DOE analysis.

Table III.2 summarizes the overall impact of the code change proposals in the qualitative analysis. Overall, the sum of the beneficial code changes (6) is greater than the number of the detrimental code change proposals (2).

The quantitative analysis of the 2015 IECC was carried out using whole-building energy simulations of prototype buildings designed to meet the requirements of the 2012 IECC and the 2015 IECC. DOE simulated 32 representative residential building types across 15 U.S. climate locations, with locations selected to be representative of all U.S climate zones, as defined by the IECC. Energy use intensities (EUI) by fuel type and by end-use, as regulated by the IECC (i.e., heating, cooling, domestic water heating and lighting) were extracted for each building type, and weighted by the relative square footage of construction (represented by building type in each climate regions). The methodology used for carrying out the quantitative analysis remains unchanged from the preliminary determination of the 2015 IECC, however, the overall findings have been updated based on comments received (see Public Comments Regarding the Determination section of this notice).

The quantitative analysis of buildings designed to meet the requirements of the 2015 IECC indicates national site energy savings of 0.98 percent of residential building energy consumption, as regulated by the IECC (in comparison to the 2012 IECC). Associated source energy savings are estimated to be approximately 0.87 percent, and national average energy cost savings are estimated to be approximately 0.73 percent. Table III.3 and Table III.4 show the energy use and associated savings resulting from the 2015 IECC by climate zone and on an aggregated national basis. Further details on the quantitative analysis can be found in the technical support document.

10.780.610.4320.880.790.6831.130.990.8341.080.990.8250.870.740.6360.850.750.6170.880.840.7180.950.940.94National Weighted Average0.980.870.73a Percentages are calculated before rounding and may not exactly match percentages calculated between Table III.3 and Table III.4.IV. Determination Statement

Review and evaluation of the 2012 and 2015 editions of the IECC indicate that there are differences between the two editions. Qualitative analysis of the updated code reveals that many of the code changes are anticipated to have a neutral impact on energy efficiency, while a small number of code changes are anticipated to yield improved energy efficiency, and a smaller number of code changes are anticipated to be detrimental to energy efficiency. In addition, quantitative analysis of the code indicates regulated site energy, source energy, and energy cost savings of 0.98 percent, 0.87 percent and 0.73 percent, respectively. Finally, DOE acknowledges the reasonable probability that the new ERI compliance path will result in energy efficiency improvements that cannot be quantified at this time. DOE has rendered the conclusion that the 2015 IECC will improve energy efficiency in residential buildings, and, therefore, should receive an affirmative determination under Section 304(a) of ECPA.

V. State Certification

Based on today's determination, each State is required to review the provisions of its residential building code regarding energy efficiency, and determine whether it is appropriate for such state to revise its building code to meet or exceed the energy efficiency provisions of the 2015 IECC. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) This action must be made not later than 2 years from the date of publication of a Notice of Determination, unless an extension is provided.

State Review and Update

The State determination must be: (1) Made after public notice and hearing; (2) in writing; (3) based upon findings and upon the evidence presented at the hearing; and (4) made available to the public. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(2)) States have discretion with regard to the hearing procedures they use, subject to providing an adequate opportunity for members of the public to be heard and to present relevant information. The Department recommends publication of any notice of public hearing through appropriate and prominent media outlets, such as in a newspaper of general circulation. States should also be aware that this determination does not apply to IECC chapters specific to nonresidential buildings, as defined in the IECC. Therefore, States must certify their evaluations of their State building codes for residential buildings with respect to all provisions of the IECC, except for those chapters not affecting residential buildings. Because state codes are based on a variety of model code editions, DOE encourages States to consider the energy efficiency improvements of the 2015 IECC, as well as other recent editions of the IECC, which may also represent a significant energy and cost savings opportunity. DOE determinations regarding earlier editions of the IECC are available on the DOE Building Energy Codes Program Web site.8 Further national and state analysis is also available.9

8 Available at http://www.energycodes.gov/regulations/determinations/previous.

9 Available at http://www.energycodes.gov/development/residential/iecc_analysis.

State Certification Statements

State certifications are to be sent to the address provided in the ADDRESSES section, or may be submitted to BuildingEnergyCodes@ee.doe.gov, and must be submitted in accordance with the deadline identified in the DATES section. If a State makes a determination that it is not appropriate to revise the energy efficiency provisions of its residential building code, the State must submit to the Secretary, in writing, the reasons for this determination, which shall be made available to the public. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(4))

The DOE Building Energy Codes Program tracks and reports State code adoption and certifications.10 Once a State has adopted an updated residential code, DOE typically provides software, training, and support for the new code, as long as the new code is based on the national model code (i.e., the 2015 IECC). DOE has issued previous guidance on how it intends to respond to technical assistance requests related to implementation resources, such as building energy code compliance software. (79 FR 15112) DOE also recognizes that some States develop their own codes that are only loosely related to the national model codes, and DOE does not typically provide technical support for those codes. DOE does not prescribe how each State adopts and enforces its energy codes.

10 Available at http://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states.

Requests for Extensions

Section 304(c) of ECPA requires that the Secretary permit an extension of the deadline for complying with the certification requirements described above, if a State can demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to comply with such requirements, and that it has made significant progress toward meeting its certification obligations. (42 U.S.C. 6833(c)) Such demonstrations could include one or both of the following: (1) A substantive plan for response to the requirements stated in Section 304; or (2) a statement that the State has appropriated or requested funds (within State funding procedures) to implement a plan that would respond to the requirements of Section 304 of ECPA. This list is not exhaustive. Requests are to be sent to the address provided in the ADDRESSES section, or may be submitted to BuildingEnergyCodes@ee.doe.gov.

Today's action is not a significant regulatory action under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735). Accordingly, today's action was not reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011. (76 FR 3281) Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866.

Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking” (67 FR 53461), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process. (68 FR 7990) DOE has also made its procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel Web site.11

11 Available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

DOE has reviewed today's action under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published in February 2003. Today's action on the determination of improved energy efficiency between IECC editions requires States to undertake an analysis of their respective building codes. Today's action does not impact small entities. Therefore, DOE has certified that there is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Today's action is covered under the Categorical Exclusion found in DOE's National Environmental Policy Act regulations at paragraph A.6 of appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. That Categorical Exclusion applies to actions that are strictly procedural, such as rulemaking establishing the administration of grants. Today's action is required by Title III of ECPA, as amended, which provides that whenever the 1992 MEC, or any successor to that code, is revised, the Secretary must make a determination, not later than 12 months after such revision, whether the revised code would improve energy efficiency in residential buildings and must publish notice of such determination in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) If the Secretary determines that the revision of 1992 MEC, or any successor thereof, improves the level of energy efficiency in residential buildings, then no later than two years after the date of the publication of such affirmative determination, each State is required to certify that it has reviewed its residential building code regarding energy efficiency and made a determination whether it is appropriate to revise its code to meet or exceed the provisions of the successor code. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) Today's action impacts whether States must perform an evaluation of State building codes. The action would not have direct environmental impacts. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

Review Under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism”

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that pre-empt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. Congress found that:

(1) Large amounts of fuel and energy are consumed unnecessarily each year in heating, cooling, ventilating, and providing domestic hot water for newly constructed residential and commercial buildings because such buildings lack adequate energy conservation features;

(2) Federal voluntary performance standards for newly constructed buildings can prevent such waste of energy, which the Nation can no longer afford in view of its current and anticipated energy shortage;

(3) The failure to provide adequate energy conservation measures in newly constructed buildings increases long-term operating costs that may affect adversely the repayment of, and security for, loans made, insured, or guaranteed by Federal agencies or made by federally insured or regulated instrumentalities; and

(4) State and local building codes or similar controls can provide an existing means by which to ensure, in coordination with other building requirements and with a minimum of Federal interference in State and local transactions, that newly constructed buildings contain adequate energy conservation features. (42 U.S.C. 6831)

Pursuant to Section 304(a) of ECPA, DOE is statutorily required to determine whether the most recent edition of the MEC (or its successor) would improve the level of energy efficiency in residential buildings as compared to the previous edition. If DOE makes an affirmative determination, the statute requires each State to certify that it has reviewed its residential building code regarding energy efficiency and made a determination whether it is appropriate to revise its code to meet or exceed the provisions of the successor code. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B))

Executive Order 13132 requires meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications unless funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the State and local governments in complying with the regulation are provided by the Federal Government. (62 FR 43257)

DOE has examined today's action and has determined that it will not pre-empt State law and will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Today's action impacts whether States must perform an evaluation of State building codes. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally requires Federal agencies to examine closely the impacts of regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments. Subsection 101(5) of Title I of that law defines a Federal intergovernmental mandate to include any regulation that would impose upon State, local, or tribal governments an enforceable duty, except a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participating in a voluntary Federal program. Title II of that law requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, other than to the extent such actions merely incorporate requirements specifically set forth in a statute. Section 202 of that title requires a Federal agency to perform an assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of any rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Section 204 of that title requires each agency that proposes a rule containing a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate to develop an effective process for obtaining meaningful and timely input from elected officers of State, local, and tribal governments.

Consistent with previous determinations, DOE has completed its review, and concluded that impacts on state, local, and tribal governments are less than the $100 million threshold specified in the Unfunded Mandates Act. Accordingly, no further action is required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. Today's action would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. Both OMB and DOE have published established relevant guidelines (67 FR 8452 and 67 FR 62446, respectively). DOE has reviewed today's action under the OMB and DOE guidelines, and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” (66 FR 28355), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of the OMB OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use, should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. Today's action would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and is therefore not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

Review Under Executive Order 13175

Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian tribal Governments”, (65 FR 67249), requires DOE to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” refers to regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” Today's action is not a policy that has “tribal implications” under Executive Order 13175. DOE has reviewed today's action under Executive Order 13175 and has determined that it is consistent with applicable policies of that Executive Order.

This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.

Brenda L. May, U.S. Department of Energy; SC-26/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290. Telephone: (301) 903-0536 or email: brenda.may@science.doe.gov. The most current information concerning this meeting can be found on the Web site: http://science.gov/np/nsac/meetings/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to provide advice and guidance on a continuing basis to the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation on scientific priorities within the field of basic nuclear science research.

Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the following:

Thursday, July 16, 2015• Perspectives from Department of Energy and National Science Foundation• Update from the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation's Nuclear Physics Office's• Report of the Mo-99 Subcommittee• Discussion of the Mo-99 Subcommittee Report• EIC Cost Report• NSAC Isotope Report• Status of the Long Range Plan ReportNote:

The NSAC Meeting will be broadcast live on the Internet. You may find out how to access this broadcast by going to the following site prior to the start of the meeting. A video record of the meeting including the presentations that are made will be archived at this site after the meeting ends: http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/DOE/150716/.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of these items on the agenda, you should contact Brenda L. May, (301) 903-0536 or Brenda.May@science.doe.gov (email). You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for review on the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Physics Web site at http://science.energy.gov/np/nsac/meetings/.

Take notice that on May 22, 2015, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056, filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations to construct and operate its South Texas Expansion Project (STEP). Specifically, Texas Eastern requests authorization to construct and operate the 8400 hp Petronila Compressor Station in Nueces County, Texas, an additional 8,400 hp compressor unit at its existing Blessing Compressor Station in Matagorda County, Texas, and modifications to its existing compressor stations in Brazoria, Chambers, and Orange Counties, Texas, to increase firm capacity by 400,000 dekatherms per day to high demand downstream, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the “e-Filing” link. Persons unable to file electronically should submit original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

On December 12, 2014, Twain Resources, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Tungstar Redux Water Power Project (Tungstar Redux Project or project) to be located at Pine Creek Mine and along Morgan and Pine Creek, near the City of Bishop in Inyo County, California. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) An intake of an unspecified design collecting Pine Creek Mine discharge water from its discharge point on Morgan Creek; (2) an 18-inch-diameter steel penstock of unspecified length with a 450-foot vertical drop: (3) A powerhouse: (4) a 600-kW impulse turbine connected to a 625-kVA generator; (5) a transmission line; (6) a substation connecting to an existing 56-kV main transmission line, and (7) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Tungstar Redux Project would be 3,600 megawatt-hours.

Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.

The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14654-000.

More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14654) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for First East Side Savings Bank, Tamarac, Florida (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of First East Side Savings Bank on October 19, 2012. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 26, 2015.

1. Ralph Ellison Mann, Sinks Grove, West Virginia, and Margaret Mann Thiessen, Grainau, Bavaria, Germany, as a group acting in concert; to acquire voting shares of Union Bankshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of The Bank of Monroe, both in Union, West Virginia.

Notice of this meeting is being provided according to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.10(a)(2). This notice provides the schedule and agenda for the July 15, 2015 meeting of the World War One Centennial Commission (the Commission). The meeting is open to the public.

DATES:

Effective: June 11, 2015.

Meeting Date and Location: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 15, 2015 starting at 9:00 a.m. Central Daylight Time (CDT), and ending no later than 11:30 a.m. Central Daylight Time (CDT). The meeting will be held at the World War I Museum at Liberty Memorial, 100 W. 26th Street, Kansas City, MO 64108. This location is handicapped accessible. The meeting will be open to the public and will also be available telephonically. Persons attending in person are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances (see http://www.access-board.gov/about/policies/fragrance.htm for more information). Persons wishing to listen to the proceedings may dial 712-432-1001 and enter access code 474845614. Note that this is not a toll-free number.

Written comments may be submitted to the Commission and will be made part of the permanent record of the Commission. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), Friday, July 10, 2015 and may be provided by email to daniel.dayton@worldwar1centennial.org. Requests to comment at the meeting must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Friday, March 6, 2015. Written presentations may be provided to Mr. Dayton at daniel.dayton@worldwar1centennial.org until Friday, March 6, 2015. Please contact Mr. Dayton at the email address above to obtain meeting materials.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Background

The World War One Centennial Commission was established by Public Law 112-272, as a commission to ensure a suitable observance of the centennial of World War I, to provide for the designation of memorials to the service of members of the United States Armed Forces in World War I, and for other purposes. Under this authority, the Committee will plan, develop, and execute programs, projects, and activities to commemorate the centennial of World War I, encourage private organizations and State and local governments to organize and participate in activities commemorating the centennial of World War I, facilitate and coordinate activities throughout the United States relating to the centennial of World War I, serve as a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of information about events and plans for the centennial of World War I, and develop recommendations for Congress and the President for commemorating the centennial of World War I. The Commission does not have an appropriation and is operated solely on donated funds.

Contact Daniel S. Dayton at daniel.dayton@worldwar1centennial.org to register to comment in person during the meeting's 30 minute public comment period. Registered speakers/organizations will be allowed 5 minutes and will need to provide written copies of their presentations. Requests to comment, together with presentations for the meeting must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), Friday, July 10, 2015. Please contact Mr. Dayton at the email above to obtain meeting materials.

Agenda: Wednesday July 15, 2015.

Old Business

• Approval of minutes of previous meetings.

• Public Comment Period.

• Discussion of recommendations to be made to the Congress and the President.

This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reapprove the proposed information collection project: “Medical Expenditure Panel Survey—Insurance Component.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.

DATES:

Comments on this notice must be received by August 10, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at doris.lefkowitz@AHRQ.hhs.gov.

Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.

Employer-sponsored health insurance is the source of coverage for 79.3 million current and former workers, plus many of their family members, and is a cornerstone of the U.S. health care system. The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey—Insurance Component (MEPS-IC) measures on an annual basis the extent, cost, and coverage of employer-sponsored health insurance. These statistics are produced at the National, State, and sub-State (metropolitan area) level for private industry. Statistics are also produced for State and Local governments.

This research has the following goals:

(1) Provide data for Federal policymakers evaluating the effects of National and State health care reforms.

(2) Provide descriptive data on the current employer-sponsored health insurance system and data for modeling the differential impacts of proposed health policy initiatives.

(3) Supply critical State and National estimates of health insurance spending for the National Health Accounts and Gross Domestic Product.

(4) Support evaluation of the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on health insurance offered by all employers, and especially by small employers (due to the implementation of Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) exchanges under the ACA), through the addition of a longitudinal component to the sample.

The MEPS-IC is conducted pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct surveys to collect data on the cost, use and quality of health care, including types and costs of private insurance. 42 U.S.C. 299b-2(a).

Method of Collection

To achieve the goals of this project for both private sector and state and local government employers, the following data collections will be implemented:

(1) Prescreener Questionnaire—The purpose of the Prescreener Questionnaire, which is collected via telephone, varies depending on the insurance status of the establishment contacted (establishment is defined as a single, physical location in the private sector and a governmental unit in state and local governments.) For establishments that do not offer health insurance to their employees, the prescreener is used to collect basic information such as number of employees via a phone call. For establishments that do offer health insurance, the prescreener is used to collect contact names and address information that is used to mail a written establishment and plan questionnaires. Obtaining this contact information helps ensure that the questionnaires are directed to the person best equipped to complete them.

(2) Establishment Questionnaire—The purpose of the mailed Establishment Questionnaire is to obtain general information from employers who provide health insurance to their employees. This information includes total active enrollment in health insurance, other employee benefits, demographic characteristics of employees, and retiree health insurance.

(3) Plan Questionnaire—The purpose of the mailed Plan Questionnaire is to collect plan-specific information on each plan (up to four) offered by establishments that provide health insurance to their employees. This questionnaire asks about total premiums, employer and employee contributions to the premium, and plan enrollment for each type of coverage offered—single, employee-plus-one, and family—within a plan. It also asks for information on deductibles, copays, and other plan characteristics.

(4) 2016—2017 Longitudinal Sample—For 2016 and 2017, an additional sample of 7,000 employers will be included in the collection. This sample, called the Longitudinal Sample (LS), is designed to measure the impact of the ACA on employer sponsored health insurance and especially the impact of the SHOP exchanges on small employers. The 2016 LS will consist of 7,000 private-sector employers who responded to the 2015 MEPS-IC, and the 2017 LS will consist of 7,000 private-sector employers who responded to the 2016 MEPS-IC. These employers will be surveyed again in 2016 and 2017—using the same collection methods as the regular survey—in order to track changes in their health insurance offerings, characteristics, and costs.

The primary objective of the MEPS-IC is to collect information on employer-sponsored health insurance. Such information is needed in order to provide the tools for Federal, State, and academic researchers to evaluate current and proposed health policies and to support the production of important statistical measures for other Federal agencies.

Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

The estimated annualized respondent burden hours and costs for the regular MEPS-IC and the Longitudinal Sample are presented separately below.

2016-2017 RegularMEPS-IC

Exhibit 1a shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent's time to participate in the MEPS-IC. The Prescreener questionnaire will be completed by 27,606 respondents and takes about 51/2 minutes to complete. The Establishment questionnaire will be completed by 23,814 respondents and takes about 23 minutes to complete. The Plan questionnaire will be completed by 21,084 respondents and will require an average of 2.2 responses per respondent. Each Plan questionnaire takes about 11 minutes to complete. The total annualized burden hours are estimated to be 19,883 hours.

Exhibit 2a shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the respondents' time to participate in this data collection. The annualized cost burden is estimated to be $615,380.

Total burden hoursPrescreener Questionnaire27,60610.092,485Establishment Questionnaire23,8141* 0.389,049Plan Questionnaire21,0842.20.188,349Total72,504nana19,883* The burden estimate printed on the establishment questionnaire is 45 minutes which includes the burden estimate for completing the establishment questionnaire, an average of 2.2 plan questionnaires, plus the prescreener. The establishment and plan questionnaires are sent to the respondent as a package and are completed by the respondent at the same time.Exhibit 2a—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden for the 2016-2017 MEPS-ICForm nameNumber of

Exhibit 1b shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent's time to participate in the Longitudinal Sample. The Prescreener questionnaire will be completed by 4,517 respondents and takes about 5 1/2 minutes to complete. The Establishment questionnaire will be completed by 4,023 respondents and takes about 23 minutes to complete. The Plan questionnaire will be completed by 3,487 respondents and will require an average of 2.2 responses per respondent. Each Plan questionnaire takes about 11 minutes to complete. The total annualized burden hours are estimated to be 3,317 hours.

Exhibit 2b shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the respondents' time to participate in this data collection. The annualized cost burden is estimated to be $102,662.

Total burden hoursPrescreener Questionnaire (LS)4,51710.09407Establishment Questionnaire (LS)4,0231* 0.381,529Plan Questionnaire (LS)3,4872.20.181,381Total12,027nana3,317* The burden estimate printed on the establishment questionnaire is 45 minutes which includes the burden estimate for completing the establishment questionnaire, an average of 2.2 plan questionnaires, plus the prescreener. The establishment and plan questionnaires are sent to the respondent as a package and are completed by the respondent at the same time.Exhibit 2b—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden for the 2016-2017 Longitudinal Sample (LS)Form nameNumber of

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

This notice amends Part K of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), as follows: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, as last amended by77 FR 61002, September 21, 2012, and Office of Refugee Resettlement, as last amended by 80 FR 3614, January 23, 2015. This notice adds a new office, the Office on Trafficking in Persons to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families and transfers the functions of the Division of Anti-Trafficking in Persons to this office. The changes are as follows:

I. Under Chapter KA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, Make the Following Changes

A. Delete KA.00 Mission in its entirety and replace with the following:

KA.00 Mission. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families (OAS) provides executive direction, leadership, and guidance for all ACF programs. OAS provides national leadership to develop and coordinate public and private initiatives for carrying out programs that promote permanency placement planning, family stability, and self-sufficiency. OAS advises the Secretary on issues affecting America's children and families, including Native Americans, refugees, legalized aliens, and victims of human trafficking. OAS provides leadership on human service issues and conducts emergency preparedness and response operations during a nationally declared emergency.

B. Delete KA.10 Organization in its entirety and replace with the following:

KA.10 Organization. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families is headed by the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families who reports directly to the Secretary and consists of:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families (KA)Executive Secretariat Office (KAF)Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response (KAG)Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary and Inter-Departmental Liaison for Early Childhood Development (KAH)Office on Trafficking in Persons (KAI)

E. The Office on Trafficking in Persons (KAI): The Office on Trafficking in Persons (OTIP) is responsible for the overall leadership of anti-trafficking programs and services under the purview of ACF, including, but not limited to, implementing provisions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). OTIP is led by a Director, with the required knowledge and expertise in advising the Assistant Secretary, ACF, in the development of anti-trafficking strategies, policies, and programs to prevent human trafficking, build health and human service capacity to respond to human trafficking, increase victim identification and access to services, and strengthen the long-term health and well-being outcomes of survivors of human trafficking. The Office certifies or provides letters of eligibility, as appropriate, to victims of severe forms of trafficking, in accordance with the TVPA and promotes public awareness on human trafficking. The Office identifies research priorities for ACF's anti-trafficking work, and leads the preparation and presentation of related memorandums, reports, briefings, trainings, technical assistance, and analyses.

II. Under Chapter KR, Office of Office of Refugee Resettlement, Make the Following Changes

A. Under Chapter KR, Office of Refugee Resettlement, delete KR.00 Mission in its entirety and replace with the following:

KR.00 Mission. The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) advises the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, on matters relating to refugee resettlement, immigration, victims of torture, unaccompanied alien children, and the repatriation of U.S. citizens. The Office plans, develops, and directs implementation of a comprehensive program for domestic refugee and entrant resettlement assistance to include cash assistance, medical assistance, and associated social services in support of early self-sufficiency. It develops, recommends, and issues program policies, procedures, and interpretations to provide program direction. The Office monitors and evaluates the performances of States and other public and private agencies in administering these programs and supports actions to improve them. It provides leadership and direction in the development and coordination of national public and private programs that provide assistance to refugees, asylees, Cuban and Haitian entrants, and certain Amerasians and victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons. The Office is also responsible for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children, the provision of specific consent in Special Immigrant Juvenile status cases, and the policies, procedures, and interpretations needed in these program areas.

B. Under Chapter KR, ORR, delete KR.10 Organization, in its entirety and replace with the following:

KR.10 Organization. ORR is headed by a Director, who reports to the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. The Office is organized as follows:

This reorganization will be effective on June 10, 2015.Mark H. Greenberg,Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.[FR Doc. 2015-14313 Filed 6-10-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-PDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESAdministration for Children and FamiliesOffice of Community Services; Notice of MeetingAGENCY:

Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.

ACTION:

Notice of Tribal Consultation.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services (OCS) will host a virtual Tribal Consultation to consult on the Assets for Independence (AFI) program proposed Performance Progress Report (PPR).

DATES:

July 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Consultation will be via webinar/teleconference.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gretchen Lehman, Program Manager, Assets for Independence, Office of Community Services, email Gretchen.Lehman@acf.hhs.gov or phone (202) 401-6614. To register for the consultation, go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GLXK9W6. If you do not have access to the internet, you can register to participate in the consultation by phone by calling (866) 778-6037. If you are not able to participate in this consultation, but want to submit testimony on this issue, please mail it to the following address no later than July 10, 2015: Jeannie L. Chaffin, Office of Community Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

AFI is a competitive, discretionary grant program that enables eligible organizations to implement and demonstrate an assets-based approach for supporting low-income individuals and their families. Tribal governments that apply jointly with 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations are eligible for AFI grants. For more information on the AFI program, go to http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/assets-for-independence-program-summary.

OCS is proposing to create an AFI program specific PPR to replace two current AFI reports: The Semiannual Standard Form Performance Progress Report (SF-PPR) and the annual data report. The AFI PPR would collect data on project activities and attributes similar to the reports that it is replacing. OCS plans to use the data collected in the AFI PPR to prepare the annual AFI Report to Congress, to evaluate and monitor the performance of the AFI program overall and of individual projects, and to inform and support technical assistance efforts. The AFI Act (Title IV of the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services Act of 1998, Public Law 105-285, [42 U.S.C. 604 note]) requires that organizations operating AFI projects submit annual progress reports, and the AFI PPR would fulfill this requirement.

OCS has proposed that the AFI PPR would be submitted quarterly: Three times per year using an abbreviated short form and one time using a long form. Both draft data collection instruments are available for review at http://idaresources.acf.hhs.gov/AFIPPR, along with additional details about this proposal.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Survey of Health Care Practitioners for Device Labeling Format and Content” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

On April 14, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Survey of Health Care Practitioners for Device Labeling Format and Content” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0790. The approval expires on May 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Labeling for Natural Rubber Latex Condoms” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

On January 30, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Labeling for Natural Rubber Latex Condoms” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0633. The approval expires on May 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Considerations for the Design of Early-Phase Clinical Trials of Cellular and Gene Therapy Products; Guidance for Industry.” The guidance document is to assist sponsors and investigators in designing early-phase clinical trials for cellular therapy (CT) and gene therapy (GT) products (referred to collectively as CGT products). The guidance document provides recommendations regarding clinical trials in which the primary objectives are the initial assessments of safety, tolerability, or feasibility of administration of investigational products. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the same title dated July 2013.

DATES:

Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.

ADDRESSES:

Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-7800. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Considerations for the Design of Early-Phase Clinical Trials of Cellular and Gene Therapy Products; Guidance for Industry.” The guidance document is to assist sponsors and investigators in designing early-phase clinical trials for CGT products. The document provides recommendations regarding clinical trials in which the primary objectives are the initial assessments of safety, tolerability, or feasibility of administration of investigational products. The scope of the guidance is limited to products for which the Office of Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies/Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research/FDA has regulatory authority. CGT products within the scope of the guidance meet the definition of “biological product” in section 351(i) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 262(i)) and include CT and GT products that are used as therapeutic vaccines. The guidance does not apply to those human cells, tissues, and cellular- and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps) regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 264), or to products regulated as medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or to the therapeutic biological products for which the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research has regulatory responsibility.

The design of early-phase clinical trials of CGT products often differs from the design of clinical trials for other types of pharmaceutical products. Differences in trial design are necessitated by the distinctive features of these products, and also may reflect previous clinical experience. The guidance document describes features of CGT products that influence clinical trial design, including product characteristics, manufacturing considerations, and preclinical considerations, and suggests other documents for additional information. Consequently, the guidance document provides recommendations with respect to these products as to clinical trial design, including early phase trial objectives, choosing a study population, using a control group and blinding, dose selection, treatment plans, monitoring, and follow-up. Finally, the guidance encourages prospective sponsors to meet with FDA review staff regarding their investigational new drug application (IND) submission and offers references for additional guidance on submitting an IND.

In the Federal Register of July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39736), FDA announced the availability of the draft guidance of the same title dated July 2013. FDA requested that comments on the guidance be submitted by November 22, 2013. In the Federal Register of November 20, 2013 (78 FR 69690), FDA extended the comment period for the draft guidance to May 9, 2014, to provide interested persons additional time to submit comments and to allow for public discussion of the draft guidance document at the Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee meeting, which was ultimately held on February 25-26, 2014 (78 FR 79699, December 31, 2013).

FDA received a number of comments on the draft guidance and these comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. In addition, editorial changes were made to improve clarity. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the same title dated July 2013.

The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents FDA's current thinking on considerations for the design of early-phase clinical trials of cellular and gene therapy products. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014.

III. Comments

Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

Notice of class deviation from competition requirements for the Health Center Program.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Awarding Agency Grants Administration Manual (AAGAM) Chapter 2.04.103, the Bureau of Primary Health Care (BPHC) has been granted a class deviation from the exceptions to maximum competition requirements contained in the AAGAM Chapter 2.04.104A-5 to provide additional funding without competition to the 115 Health Center Program awardees whose budget period ends October 31, 2015, for up to 4 months. The extension allows BPHC to eliminate the November 1 budget period start date by redistributing these grants to established starting dates later in the fiscal year, thereby allowing awardees comparable opportunity to prepare and submit applications while allowing BPHC to remain compliant with internal process timelines.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Intended Recipient of the Award: Health Center Program awardees with a project period end date of October 31, 2015.

Amount of Non-Competitive Awards: $44,481,501.

Period of Supplemental Funding: November 1, 2015, to a maximum of February 28, 2016.

CFDA Number: 93.224.

Authority:

Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 254b, as amended).

Justification: Targeting the nation's neediest populations and geographic areas, the Health Center Program currently funds nearly 1,300 health centers that operate approximately 9,000 service delivery sites in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Pacific Basin. In 2013, more than 21 million patients, including medically underserved and uninsured patients, received comprehensive, culturally competent, quality primary health care services through the Health Center Program awardees. Due to the vast size of the Health Center Program, the active grants are distributed across eight budget periods that begin on the first of the month, November through June.

BPHC uses the information awardees report annually via the Uniform Data System (UDS) to objectively determine the patient and service area requirements that new and continuing applications must address. The requirements are available for applicant use in June. The deviation allows BPHC to redistribute the awardees with November 1 start dates to budget period start dates later in the fiscal year, thus allowing these awardees comparable opportunity to prepare and submit applications while allowing BPHC to remain compliant with internal process timelines. By September 15, 2015, $44,481,501 will be awarded to these 115 awardees to continue approved activities for up to 4 months. Awardees will report progress and financial obligations made during their budget period extension through routine reports.

In accordance with the Awarding Agency Grants Administration Manual (AAGAM) Chapter 2.04.103, the Bureau of Primary Health Care (BPHC) has been granted a class deviation from the exceptions to maximum competition requirements contained in the AAGAM Chapter 2.04.104A-5 to provide additional funding without competition to the 37 Health Center Controlled Networks (HCCNs) awarded under announcement HRSA-13-237, extending their December 1, 2014, to November 31, 2015, budget period through July 31, 2016. This action will align the project period end dates of all active HCCN grants and ensure maximum competition for a single HCCN funding opportunity in fiscal year (FY) 2016.

Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 254b, as amended).

Justification: Health Center Controlled Networks enhance the use of health information technology (HIT) to improve the quality of care provided by Health Center Program awardees and look-alikes, collectively referred to as health centers. HCCNs bring health centers together to jointly address operational and clinical challenges, particularly the acquisition and implementation of HIT in a cost-efficient manner. They help fulfill the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan and address HRSA's goal that all Health Center Program awardees will:

• Acquire and effectively implement certified Electronic Health Record (EHR) technology to enable all eligible providers to become meaningful users of EHRs as defined by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS);

Two HCCN funding opportunities were competed in FY 2013, resulting in two grant cohorts with project period end dates that differ by 8 months: 37 grants funded under HRSA-13-237 ending November 30, 2015, and six grants funded under HRSA-13-267 ending July 31, 2016. BPHC requests to implement one project period end date for all active HCCNs, July 31, 2016, by providing an additional 8 months of support to grants funded under HRSA-13-237. Creating one funding cycle will prevent a lapse in funding that may jeopardize HIT implementation underway at the health centers receiving technical assistance from the HCCNs. By September 30, 2015, $11,909,772 will be awarded to continue the 37 grants' approved activities for 8 months (see Table 1). Awardees will report progress and financial obligations made during the 8-month budget period extension as instructed by the Notice of Award.

In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Indian Health Service (IHS) is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for an extension of a previously approved collection of information titled, “IHS Loan Repayment Program (LRP)” (OMB Control Number 0917-0014), which expires July 31, 2015. This proposed information collection project was recently published in the Federal Register (80 FR 23558) on April 28, 2015, and allowed 60 days for public comment, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). The IHS received no comments regarding this collection. The purpose of this notice is to allow 30 days for public comment to be submitted directly to OMB.

A copy of the supporting statement is available at www.regulations.gov (see Docket ID IHS-2015-0003).

Proposed Collection: Title: 0917-0014, “Indian Health Service Loan Repayment Program.” Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of currently approved information collection, 0917-0014, “Indian Health Service Loan Repayment Program.” The LRP application is available in an electronically fillable and fileable format. Form(s): The IHS LRP Information Booklet contains the instructions and the application format. Need and Use of Information Collection: The IHS LRP identifies health professionals with pre-existing financial obligations for education expenses that meet program criteria who are qualified and willing to serve at, often remote, IHS health care facilities. Under the program, eligible health professionals sign a contract through which the IHS agrees to repay part or all of their indebtedness in exchange for an initial two-year service commitment to practice full-time at an eligible Indian health program. The LRP is necessary to augment the critically low health professional staff at IHS health care facilities.

Any health professional wishing to have their health education loans repaid may apply to the IHS LRP. A two-year contract obligation is signed by both parties, and the individual agrees to work at an eligible Indian health program location and provide health services to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals.

The information collected via the on-line application from individuals is analyzed and a score is given to each applicant. This score will determine which applicants will be awarded each fiscal year. The administrative scoring system assigns a score to the geographic location according to vacancy rates for that fiscal year and also considers whether the location is in an isolated area. When an applicant accepts employment at a location, the applicant in turn “picks-up” the score of that location. Affected Public: Individuals and households. Type of Respondents: Individuals.

The table below provides: Types of data collection instruments, Estimated number of respondents, Number of responses per respondent, Annual number of responses, Average burden hour per response, and Total annual burden hour(s).

Estimated Burden HoursData collection instrument(s)Number of

respondents

Number of

responses per respondent

Average

burden per

response

(in hours)

Total annual responses

(in hours)

LRP Application81611.51,224

There are no Capital Costs, Operating Costs, and/or Maintenance Costs to report.

Requests for Comments: Your comments and/or suggestions are invited on one or more of the following points:

(a) Whether the information collection activity is necessary to carry out an agency function;

(b) whether the agency processes the information collected in a useful and timely fashion;

(c) the accuracy of public burden estimate (the estimated amount of time needed for individual respondents to provide the requested information);

(d) whether the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates are logical;

(e) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and

(f) how the newly created online application assists the applicant efficiently and effectively.

Notice is hereby given of a change in the meetings of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, June 18, 2015, 8:00 a.m. to June 19, 2015, 6:00 p.m., Hilton Washington Embassy Row, 2015 Massachusetts Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20036, which was published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2015 (80 FR 22214).

The meeting notice is amended to change the date/time/venue from July 13, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., July 14, 2015, at 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to be held at the Embassy Suite Hotel Chevy Chase, MD. The meeting is closed to the public.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:

30-day notice.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2015 at 80 FR 17765, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS received two comments in connection with the 60-day notice.

DATES:

The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 13, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Comments may also be submitted via fax at (202) 395-5806. All submissions received must include the agency name and the OMB Control Number 1615-0005.

You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please contact us at: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Laura Dawkins, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number 202-272-8377. Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Overview of This Information Collection

(1) Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Family Unity Benefits.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-817; USCIS.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households: The information collected will be used to determine whether the applicant meets the eligibility requirements for benefits under 8 CFR 236.14 and 245a.33.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-817 is approximately 2,557 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours per response; and the estimated number of respondents providing biometrics is 2,557 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 8,106 hours.

HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

DATES:

Comments Due Date: July 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at Colette Pollard@hud.gov or telephone 202-402-3400. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.

The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on Mach 25, 2015 at 80 FR 15803.

A. Overview of Information Collection

Title of Information Collection: Single Family Premium Collection Subsystem-Periodic (SFPCS-P).

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0536.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Single Family Premium Collection Subsystem-Periodic (SFPCS-P) allows the lenders to remit the Periodic Mortgagee Insurance using funds obtained from the mortgagor during the collection of the monthly mortgage payment. The SFPCS-P strengthens HUD`s ability to manage and process periodic single-family mortgage insurance premium collections and corrections to submitted data. It also improves date integrity for the Single Family Mortgage Insurance Program. Therefore, the FHA approved lenders use the automated Clearing House (ACH) application for all transmissions with SFPCS-P. The authority for this collection of information is specified in 24 CFR 203.264 AND 24 CFR 203.269. In general, the lenders use the ACH application to remit the periodic premium payments through SFPCS-P for the required FHA insured cases and to comply with the Credit Reform Act.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,536.

Estimated Number of Responses: 18,432.

Frequency of Response: 12.

Average Hours per Response: 15.

Total Estimated Burdens: 2,765.

B. Solicitation of Public Comment

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

DATES:

Comments Due Date: July 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at Colette Pollard@hud.gov or telephone 202-402-3400. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.

The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on Mach 25, 2015 at 80 FR 15803.

A. Overview of Information Collection

Title of Information Collection: Single Family Mortgage Insurance on Hawaiian Homelands.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0358.

Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: FHA insures mortgages on single-family dwellings under provisions of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709). The Housing and Urban Rural Recovery Act (HURRA), P.L. 98-181, amended the National Housing Act to add Section 247 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-12) to permit FHA to insure mortgages for properties located on Hawaiian Homelands. Under this program, the mortgagor must be a native Hawaiian. Section 247 requires that the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) of the State of Hawaii (a) will be a co-mortgagor; (b) guarantees or reimburses the Secretary for any mortgage insurance claim paid in connection with a property on Hawaiian homelands; or (c) offers other security acceptable to the Secretary.

In accordance with 24 CFR 203.43i, the collection of information is verification that a loan applicant is a native Hawaiian and that the applicant holds a lease on land in a Hawaiian Homelands area. A borrower must obtain verification of eligibility from DHHL and submit it to the lender. A borrower cannot obtain a loan under these provisions without proof of status as a native Hawaiian. United States citizens living in Hawaii are not eligible for this leasehold program unless they are native Hawaiians. The eligibility document is required to obtain benefits.

In accordance with 24 CFR 203.439(c), lenders must report monthly to HUD and the DHHL on delinquent borrowers and provide documentation to HUD to support that the loss mitigation requirements of 24 CFR 203.604 have been met. To assist the DHHL in identifying delinquent loans, lenders report monthly. A delinquent mortgage that is reported timely would allow DHHL to intervene and prevent foreclosure.